"Jaldhar H. Vyas" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Tue, 14 Oct 2003, Alois Treindl wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 14 Oct 2003, Jaldhar H. Vyas wrote:
>>
>> >
>> > Personally my suggestion would be to adopt the dual QPL/GPL scheme just
>> > like Trolltech.
>>
>> Yes, except for one additional situation:
>>
>> We find more and more that software is developed not for distribution, but
>> for inhouse use in commercial companies, e.g. to power a web application
>> which makes money via web services.
>>
>> We would like this usage to be considered commercial, i.e. requiring
>> a paid license.
>>
>> I am not sure that the GPL serves us here. Someone using Swiss Ephemeris
>> unde the GPL could run it in some webservice, without ever paying
>> anything, or ever ublishing anything back for the open source community.
>>
>> I have not looked at the QT license in that respect. Are you aware of that
>> situation is covered in a way favourable for QT?
>>
>
> My understanding is that the GPL is currently unclear on the topic of web
> services and this is going to be addressed in an upcoming GPL v3. I don't
> know about the QPL. I am taking the liberty of ccing your message to
> debian-legal as the people there are more knowledgeable on such subjects.
I think it's pretty clear that Mr. Treindl does not want Swiss
Ephemeris to be free software: freedom to exploit the software for
commercial benefit is a necessary component of Debian's definition of
Freedom.
-Brian
--
Brian T. Sniffen [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.evenmere.org/~bts/
