On Thu, Dec 19, 2002 at 01:34:22PM -0500, Stephen Ryan wrote: > > If the QPL permits redistribution (I haven't read that license in a > > while), it should be ok for non-free. > > If acidlab upstream uses JpGraph, then of course you have little choice; > > but you might be interested to point them towards Vagrant > > <http://vagrant.sourceforge.net/>, an imlib-based PHP graphing class > > available under the GPL that gives very impressive-looking results. > Waitaminnit. Maybe I'm missing something here, but isn't the QPL a Free > Software license? I didn't do that much of a careful search, but I > googled for "QPL DFSG" and found a bunch of hits that make it look like > the QPL is considered Free. If so, then why shouldn't jpgraph go into > main? The "commercial" clause is no more obnoxious than a > GPL/talk-to-me dual license, as it applies only in the case of > closed-source use. As noted, it's been quite some time since I read the QPL, and I won't pretend to have an opinion on the DFSG-freeness of it. You may instead read my first comment as, "if the QPL permits redistribution, it should *at minimum* be ok for non-free." Googling suggests there has been some disagreement in the past as to whether QPL is DFSG-compliant, though the last word standing on the subject seems to be that it is. -- Steve Langasek postmodern programmer
Attachment:
pgpn0c9JmnCr6.pgp
Description: PGP signature