On Thu, Dec 19, 2002 at 01:34:22PM -0500, Stephen Ryan wrote: > > On Wed, Dec 18, 2002 at 02:46:21PM -0500, Luis Bustamante wrote: > > > > > "JpGraph is released under a dual license. QPL 1.0 (Qt Free > > > Licensee) For non-commercial, open-source and educational use and > > > JpGraph Professional License[2] for commercial use." > > > > Waitaminnit. Maybe I'm missing something here, but isn't the QPL a Free > Software license?
The QPL option is restricted to "for non-commercial, open-source and educational use". I'm not sure how free that is, because "open-source use" is poorly defined. Also, this license is ambiguous for commercial open-source projects. Is this an inclusive or an exclusive "and"? The English language doesn't have proper logic operators, and a judge might opt for the most conservative interpretation. If the JpGraph authors intended the text about the QPL to be only explanatory then it would be best if they make that clear. If it's intended as a restriction on when the QPL may be used, then I think that makes it non-free. Richard Braakman
