Incorrect GPL interpretation

Your Licensing FAQ pages says:

You should purchase ActiveWidgets commercial license for all types of commercial software or internal systems development except for the work released to the general public as an open source.

That is incorrect, or at least misleading. I'm sure its not intentional (perhaps you don't understand the GPL). Under the GPL, a commercial company can create internal projects using GPL source code without contributing their changes back to the source. As long as the company does not distribute their software to anyone outside the company, they are in full compliance with the GPL.

As it stands, someone can use your product legally for a internal software without impact, without purchasing your alternative license. If that's not what you want, then you should use a different license. But misrepresenting the GPL misleads people into misunderstanding the license. That does the GPL a great disservice.

Dan,

what you say is correct if applied to 'normal' code (either running on a server or on the desktop). In case of client-side JavaScript library which travels over network to run on a client machine it is far less obvious. One can argue that this is in fact redistribution. Because of these ambiguities I believe the recommendation to purchase commercial license for non-open source projects is valid (even if it is based more on a common sense) and basically says - if you want to play safe just buy a commercial license.

When I think of "internal systems devlopment" as it relates to a website, I'm thinking about a completely internal project, such as an Intranet site, where every user who will view the web page containing the Javascript is part of the developing company. A company does not need to purchase your alternative licensed product to comply with the GPL for what I would call "internal systems".

Yes, as long as you garantee that this website will never ever be viewed by someone who is not employed by this company.

I can understand what you are trying to achieve, but I think you HAVE misunderstood the GPL. If it is a client side library then LGPL is probably more relevant.

[gpl licence quote]
If identifiable sections of that work are not derived from the Program,
and can be reasonably considered independent and separate works in
themselves, then this License, and its terms, do not apply to those
sections when you distribute them as separate works.
[/gpl licence quote]

I was intending to use it as a bolt on to a Post Nuke site (which is already GPL) running on Apache / Linux (also GPL or GPL like licences)

If you want to work with GPL (which I applaud) and also to make some money (which is necessary) then a standard (GPL) / pro (non-GPL) edition is probably the way forward.

STRICT CSS compliance and professional support would be 2 items that would make the pro version useful.

In my case, the lack of STRICT or even Transitional support means that I am unable to use it.