Eray Ozkural (exa) wrote:
>On Saturday 30 June 2001 11:55, Richard Braakman wrote:
>
>>If with "commercial code" you really mean non-free code, then the GPL
>>would accomplish it much more thoroughly. I don't have a copy of the
>>QPL here to check, but I remember it being lenient about linking with
>>non-free code.
>>
>>If you mean "commercial" in the sense of someone making money out of it,
>>then the QPL won't accomplish that, and there's no way it will ever go
>>into main.
>>
>
>I prefer GPL for the free software that I write but I predict that the
>upstream will be more comfortable with a BSD-like license. I may be wrong
>of course but it would be best if someone at their university, who is
>acquainted with them, could have an informal talk with the authors about this
>matter.
>
Hmm, if their intent is "If you link with commercial/closed code, you
must pay us," then I think the more restrictive licenses like GPL and
QPL might be more to their liking. As the copyright holders, they can
always re-license it to "commercial" people under different terms, but
the BSD-style would allow anyone to use it for any purpose, which
defeats their desire to restrict commercial/closed use. Of course, we'd
need to clarify whether they mean commercial or closed...
Maybe I'll suggest the GPL and QPL, and refer them to DFSG and
opensource.org, the latter of which has an extensive list of
OSD-compatible licenses; the OSD having been derived from DFSG. From my
perspective, GPL would be best because I could GPL all of my codes
linking it. :-)
I have a contact who used to be at the Geometry Center, but more on the
Geomview side; do you know any of the *metis people?
--
-Adam P.
GPG fingerprint: D54D 1AEE B11C CE9B A02B C5DD 526F 01E8 564E E4B6
Welcome to the best software in the world today cafe!
<http://lyre.mit.edu/%7Epowell/The_Best_Stuff_In_The_World_Today_Cafe.ogg>
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
