It was brought to my attention that original note didn't live up to "Clarification" status and I was asked to spell it in more "tangible" terms. The root for misunderstanding is currently changing context meaning for term "commercial product," which used to denote proprietary, closed source software. Even though dvd+rw-tools are widely available under GNU Public License, I, as original author, am free to provide it under multiple licenses. The arrangement is that if a 3rd party wants to discuss alternative terms, and more specifically if they would like to include dvd+rw-tools [or their components] as a part of commercial/proprietary product for Solaris™, then they are expected to turn to Inserve Technology. The agreement is not meant to encumber GPL-compliant usage of the sofware in question, for example no explicit permission/license is required, if the same party chooses to download and deploy it internally in their Solaris environment, e.g. for backup purposes, or even re-distribute it under GPL terms.