Eray Ozkural (exa) wrote:
Hmm, if their intent is "If you link with commercial/closed code, you must pay us," then I think the more restrictive licenses like GPL and QPL might be more to their liking. As the copyright holders, they can always re-license it to "commercial" people under different terms, but the BSD-style would allow anyone to use it for any purpose, which defeats their desire to restrict commercial/closed use. Of course, we'd need to clarify whether they mean commercial or closed...On Saturday 30 June 2001 11:55, Richard Braakman wrote:If with "commercial code" you really mean non-free code, then the GPL would accomplish it much more thoroughly. I don't have a copy of the QPL here to check, but I remember it being lenient about linking with non-free code. If you mean "commercial" in the sense of someone making money out of it, then the QPL won't accomplish that, and there's no way it will ever go into main.I prefer GPL for the free software that I write but I predict that the upstream will be more comfortable with a BSD-like license. I may be wrong of course but it would be best if someone at their university, who is acquainted with them, could have an informal talk with the authors about this matter.
Maybe I'll suggest the GPL and QPL, and refer them to DFSG and opensource.org, the latter of which has an extensive list of OSD-compatible licenses; the OSD having been derived from DFSG. From my perspective, GPL would be best because I could GPL all of my codes linking it. :-)
I have a contact who used to be at the Geometry Center, but more on the Geomview side; do you know any of the *metis people?
-- -Adam P. GPG fingerprint: D54D 1AEE B11C CE9B A02B C5DD 526F 01E8 564E E4B6Welcome to the best software in the world today cafe! <http://lyre.mit.edu/%7Epowell/The_Best_Stuff_In_The_World_Today_Cafe.ogg>