Rekall not longer available from theKompany.com - a fabrication

[Paul Boddie]

philh at invalid.email.address (phil hunt) wrote in message news:<slrnbql2h8.5cb.philh at cabalamat.cabalamat.org>...
> On Wed, 05 Nov 2003 17:23:25 +0000, Richie Hindle <richie at entrian.com> wrote:
> >
> >Your website (http://www.totalrekall.co.uk) says "The GPL version would be
> >free for non-commercial use", which is a contradiction. 
> 
> Not at all. The website says:
> 
> ==================================================================
> We are thinking of releasing the Linux version Rekall under a duel 
> licensing scheme. There would be a free for non-commercial use GPL 
> version and the normal commercial version.

Well, given the history of Rekall, combined with TheKompany's problems
with selling GPL software because people apparently demanded the
source code for free without buying anything, it's hard to know
whether the developers have misinterpreted the GPL or are trying to
layer their own incompatible stipulations on top.

> The GPL would not include any kind of support whatsoever, therefore 
> you would need to take out a support subscription.
> The GPL version would be free for non-commercial use.

You have to ask yourself the question: if your knowledge of the GPL
was sketchy or non-existent, how would you interpret that last
sentence?

[Rest of notice cut]

> There's nothing innacurate or contradictory in that statement. After 
> all, the GPL *is* "free for non-commercial use"; it just happens to 
> be free for commerical use as well -- and the website doesn't say 
> that it isn't, it just omits to mention that it is.

Isn't this known as being "economical with the truth", or is it just
downright contradictory? It's like saying that "nude bathing is
allowed but you aren't allowed to get wet", only to explain such a
ridiculous statement away by then saying that "they just forgot to
mention that you are allowed to get wet as well".

Paul