Emil Eifrem wrote: > On Fri, May 23, 2008 at 11:00 AM, Niclas Hedhman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> The original author has the rights to license any part of the work, >> any way he/she/it wants. So, having the Qi4j-Neo4j bridge in our >> project is not a legal problem per se. >> >> BUT, and this is a HUGE, PAIN in the BUTT; The downstream user that >> downloads Neo4J and makes it available to some user, either embedded >> in the application or by providing a networked service, will have to >> either; >> a. Abide by the AGPL, which requires at least GPL of derived work, OR >> b. Get the commercial license. >> > > Correct. Our intent is this: > > a) if you write free or open source software, great, we want you to > be able to use Neo gratis and under a free software license, > > b) if you write proprietary software, you're not unlikely to be > making money off of it, and then we think it's fair to ask you to > purchase a commercial license. > > It's not perfect, but we believe it's a good approximation of fair and > ethical as well as commercially viable. YMMV. > > Is there anyway to find out more about the commercial license on the web? The commercial link on your site provides only a single page with the .org website and a whitepaper. This doesn't make me very confident of a technology that is (a) for sale, and (b) is reported to be in production for 4 yrs.
/Ian _______________________________________________ qi4j-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.ops4j.org/mailman/listinfo/qi4j-dev
