On Tue, 11 Mar 2003, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> This unfortunately is not satisfactory. See on the main JpGraph page
> the actual license grant:
>
> ] 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 for commercial use.
> ]
> ] Basically it means that if you or your company develops non open
> ] source software and have financial gains, either directly or
> ] indirectly (for example by improving a business process), by using
> ] JpGraph this counts as commercial use.
>
> So if you are IBM, say, and you get any financial gain because you use
> JpGraph to prepare reports, then you are a "commercial use", and you
> are not allowed to distribute under the QPL.
I agree.
The terms of the copyright statement clearly make it non-free, because
it violates DFSG #6 and #7. [No discrimination against fields of
endeavor, and the distribution of license clause. {The license we
distribute it under must apply to everyone who we can distribute it to.}]
If the comercial license was somehow free, this would satisfy #6, but
it still wouldn't satisfy #7.
[It's not truely dual licensed either. It's one license for one group,
and another license for another group.]
Don Armstrong
--
"I was thinking seven figures," he said, "but I would have taken a
hundred grand. I'm not a greedy person." [All for a moldy bottle of
tropicana.]
-- Sammi Hadzovic [in Andy Newman's 2003/02/14 NYT article.]
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/02/14/nyregion/14EYEB.html
http://www.donarmstrong.com
http://www.anylevel.com
http://rzlab.ucr.edu
Attachment:
pgpP0Od9C1TVp.pgp
Description: PGP signature