>Objet: Re: [Pythonocc-users] Licensing for Commercial Use > >Maybe I've misunderstood - I thought you were discussing dual licensing >PythonOCC? In which case the license of OpenCASCADE itself becomes >important, which is a bit ambiguous, no?
Hi Arthur, There is absolutely no ambiguity and the distinction is clear: - OpenCascade licence is LGPL like (although it's not OSI approved). It's a 'not viral' Open Source licence: the code that uses OpenCascade you can produce proprietary software based on this library. - pythonOCC is a GPLv3 software. This licence is known to be 'viral': a program using pythonOCC has to be released under the GPL license. You might want your code to be 'closed source', which is impossible with the GPL license. In this case, the 'dual licensing' (that is, an other licence), allow you to redistribute you program under the terms of another licence. Thomas > > Arthur > >Jelle Feringa wrote: >>> 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? > >> PythonOCC is GPL, *no* ambiguity there ;') >> True, LGPL is far (L)esser restrictive and doesn't work for a dual >> licensing. >> >> -jelle >> _______________________________________________ Pythonocc-users mailing list Pythonocc-users@gna.org https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/pythonocc-users
