Re: Dual licensed software
On Tue, Mar 11, 2003 at 02:31:08PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote: > Glenn Maynard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > On Tue, Mar 11, 2003 at 02:11:39PM -0500, Luis Bustamante wrote: > > > QPL is DFSG-free iirc, can JpGraph go in main despite the fact it can > > > be used also under the terms of JpGraph Commercial License? > > > > The DFSG-freeness of the QPL is currently under renewed debate on this > > list. > > I think after Henning's recent posts, it's now clear that the QPL is > not problematic after all, because the forced publication requirement > can be evaded entirely. Please review my recent message to this list, subject "QPL clause 3 is not DFSG-free". -- G. Branden Robinson|You can have my PGP passphrase when Debian GNU/Linux |you pry it from my cold, dead [EMAIL PROTECTED] |brain. http://people.debian.org/~branden/ |-- Adam Thornton pgpddYKCZlH3A.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Dual licensed software
Glenn Maynard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On Tue, Mar 11, 2003 at 02:11:39PM -0500, Luis Bustamante wrote: > > QPL is DFSG-free iirc, can JpGraph go in main despite the fact it can > > be used also under the terms of JpGraph Commercial License? > > The DFSG-freeness of the QPL is currently under renewed debate on this > list. I think after Henning's recent posts, it's now clear that the QPL is not problematic after all, because the forced publication requirement can be evaded entirely.
Re: Dual licensed software
On Tue, 11 Mar 2003, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> This unfortunately is not satisfactory. See on the main JpGraph page
> the actual license grant:
>
> ] JpGraph is released under a dual license.
> ]
> ] QPL 1.0 (Qt Free Licensee) For non-commercial, open-source and
> ] educational use and JpGraph Professional License for commercial use.
> ]
> ] Basically it means that if you or your company develops non open
> ] source software and have financial gains, either directly or
> ] indirectly (for example by improving a business process), by using
> ] JpGraph this counts as commercial use.
>
> So if you are IBM, say, and you get any financial gain because you use
> JpGraph to prepare reports, then you are a "commercial use", and you
> are not allowed to distribute under the QPL.
I agree.
The terms of the copyright statement clearly make it non-free, because
it violates DFSG #6 and #7. [No discrimination against fields of
endeavor, and the distribution of license clause. {The license we
distribute it under must apply to everyone who we can distribute it to.}]
If the comercial license was somehow free, this would satisfy #6, but
it still wouldn't satisfy #7.
[It's not truely dual licensed either. It's one license for one group,
and another license for another group.]
Don Armstrong
--
"I was thinking seven figures," he said, "but I would have taken a
hundred grand. I'm not a greedy person." [All for a moldy bottle of
tropicana.]
-- Sammi Hadzovic [in Andy Newman's 2003/02/14 NYT article.]
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/02/14/nyregion/14EYEB.html
http://www.donarmstrong.com
http://www.anylevel.com
http://rzlab.ucr.edu
pgpyufdsGV6ZV.pgp
Description: PGP signature
Re: Dual licensed software
On Tue, Mar 11, 2003 at 12:29:12PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> So if you are IBM, say, and you get any financial gain because you use
> JpGraph to prepare reports, then you are a "commercial use", and you
> are not allowed to distribute under the QPL.
This comes back to Steve's message in another thread:
>Note that the limits you're placing in your example (group x can have
>this license, group y can have this license) mean that neither the
>3-clause BSD nor the GPL is actually in effect -- you've modified both
>licenses by limiting who's eligible. I'm not sure if this makes it
>non-free; if the license is worded such that a teacher receiving the
>source under the BSD license can't redistribute modifications under the
>BSD license to *non*-teachers, then it's certainly non-free.
In other words, even non-commercial users don't really get the QPL; they
get the QPL with additional restrictions ("no commercial use").
--
Glenn Maynard
Re: Dual licensed software
On Tue, Mar 11, 2003 at 02:11:39PM -0500, Luis Bustamante wrote: > QPL is DFSG-free iirc, can JpGraph go in main despite the fact it can > be used also under the terms of JpGraph Commercial License? The DFSG-freeness of the QPL is currently under renewed debate on this list. -- Glenn Maynard
Re: Dual licensed software
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Luis Bustamante) writes: > QPL is DFSG-free iirc, can JpGraph go in main despite the fact it can > be used also under the terms of JpGraph Commercial License? > > References > 1. http://www.aditus.nu/jpgraph > 2. http://www.aditus.nu/jpgraph/jpgprolicense.pdf This unfortunately is not satisfactory. See on the main JpGraph page the actual license grant: ] JpGraph is released under a dual license. ] ] QPL 1.0 (Qt Free Licensee) For non-commercial, open-source and ] educational use and JpGraph Professional License for commercial use. ] ] Basically it means that if you or your company develops non open ] source software and have financial gains, either directly or ] indirectly (for example by improving a business process), by using ] JpGraph this counts as commercial use. So if you are IBM, say, and you get any financial gain because you use JpGraph to prepare reports, then you are a "commercial use", and you are not allowed to distribute under the QPL.
Re: Dual licensed software
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Luis Bustamante) writes: > Hi, > > I packaged JpGraph[1], it is an object oriented class library for > php4. Currently, it is dual licensed under QPL 1.0 and JpGraph > Commercial License[2]. It doesn't have any restriction for open-source > use (you can even use QPL for commercial opensource use). The > commercial license is used for commercial non-opensource. I brought > this issue a couple of weeks ago to d-legal because it wasn't clear if > QPL could be used in commercial open-source projects, but now the > author explains better jpgraph license in his website. > > QPL is DFSG-free iirc, can JpGraph go in main despite the fact it can > be used also under the terms of JpGraph Commercial License? Eh, for reference, this is the copyright that was in the package I rejected: | Copyright: | | JpGraph is released under a dual license. QPL 1.0 (Qt Free Licensee) | for non-commercial, open-source and educational use and JpGraph | Professional License for commercial non-opensource use. | | Basically it means that if you or your company develops non open | source software and have financial gains, either directly or | indirectly (for example by improving a business process), by using | JpGraph this counts as commercial use. | | The Professional JpGraph License 1.2 can be found at | http://www.aditus.nu/jpgraph/jpgprolicense.pdf -- James
