Scripsit Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> as a person who does not feel that the QPL
> is DFSG-free, I should offer my clarfication of the above.
For the record, and for the benefit of the JpGraph author, I should
probably state that after having closely read Branden's objections
to the QPL
On Sun, Mar 16, 2003 at 11:04:21PM +0100, Henning Makholm wrote:
> First, you need to decide whether you want to allow internal business
> use under your gratis license option. If not, there's no reason to
> talk more, because your licensing will never be DFSG-free then.
> Otherwise, the next thing
JpGraph <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> * to guarantee that it stays free and that the library is not
> re-packaged and then sold by some other companies.
If by "free" you mean "available at no cost", then free software isn't
for you. Free software is about *freedom*, not a near-zero price.
One
Scripsit JpGraph <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> May I ask you for some advice?
Sure.
> The current setup with standard vs. pro-license is definitely not ideal
> but so far is the only thing I have been able to come up with that
> seems, to sort of, work.
We have no problem with dual-licensing schemes
JpGraph <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> My goal with some kind of license setup for JpGraph is
I'm not a lawyer and cannot give legal advice.
The obvious thing to do is to license the library under the GPL to
everyone and offer an alternative non-free licence to companies that
want to use it as part of a
Hi again,
Yes you are probably right. The whole license thing is rather murky.
May I ask you for some advice?
My goal with some kind of license setup for JpGraph is
* have a clear no-nonsense license
* to make the library free for all open source users
* to guarantee that it stays free and
6 matches
Mail list logo
