On Sun, 2005-11-06 at 17:02 -0500, David-Paul Niner wrote: > Craig White wrote: > > On Sun, 2005-11-06 at 13:07 -0600, Jeff Vian wrote: > > > >>It may be somewhat better in ways, but it has an annual fee associated > >>with it. > >> > > > > ---- > > maybe I'm stupid but all I have seen is GNU GPL license and have never > > seen annual fee (I am presuming we are talking ipcop). Am I missing > > something? > > > > Craig > > > > > > Whether or not there is an annual fee associated with ipcop I cannot > say, but I do know that releasing software under the GPL and charging an > annual support fee are not mutually exclusive propositions. > > Please forgive me if that was not what you were implying. > > Just an observation, ---- I wasn't implying anything other than what I said - that the software carries a GNU/GPL license and I've never seen anything that stated an annual fee to be associated with it - for any reason. If Jeff or anyone cares to point out where these fees are mentioned, I would appreciate it since I am using ipcop at a number of clients and have given up on smoothwall for a number of reasons (and I note that smoothwall is interested in support contracts and renumeration for extra features). I was thinking that Jeff was confused and wanted him to elaborate on his point. Craig -- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by MailScanner, and is believed to be clean.
