> Meaning - the pythonocc organisation can issue a 'commercial' license > with a commercial developer
Yes. For instance fellow dutchmen TomTom used a bunch of OS modules that are (L)GPL'ed, so they had to open up: http://www.opentom.org/Main_Page > or do you mean that Python-OCC will > become available under a non-viral license model such as the MIT > license (or LGPL if I recall correctly) No. Thomas & I agree that the dual licensing scheme is a pretty ideal compromise. Look for instance at a project like CGAL.org, its commercially licensed as geometryfactory.com/ In fact, its a really smart idea; profits made by the commercial license are piped back to the developers of the licensed module. A pretty ideal situation; this way academic researcher profit from their efforts, without the overhead of running a company / dealing with support. So, there's something in it for everyone. Fair deal, don't you think. We haven't yet worked out the details for the dual licensing, but I do think this is an attractive model of channeling the collective pythonOCC.org intelligence. -jelle _______________________________________________ Pythonocc-users mailing list Pythonocc-users@gna.org https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/pythonocc-users
