Hi Jelle, I have no problem with dual licensing, and would be quite happy if you and Thomas can make a little back for the immense amount of work you've put in. But just a quick question - how does this fit in with the (somewhat ambiguous) OCC license? I can't remember if it is GPL- or LGPL-like - but I think that makes a difference to your plans?
Arthur Jelle Feringa wrote: >> 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 _______________________________________________ Pythonocc-users mailing list Pythonocc-users@gna.org https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/pythonocc-users
