Re: JpGraph License Question [From the author]
Scripsit JpGraph <firstname.lastname@example.org>
> May I ask you for some advice?
> 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 in general. Our main
problem with JpGraph is that you say on your licensing page that one
needs your "professional license" if one wants to use your software
internally in a business. This conflicts with the text of the QPL
itself, which *does* allow internal use in a business.
Therefore, we're forced to view your wording "QPL for open source use"
(or whatever it was) as a restriction that is *in addition* to the
conditions that are in the QPL per se. That is, you are not really
licensing under the QPL, but under some artificial "QPL with extra
restrictions added" license. And this artificial license just happens
to not meet our concept of "freedom", the Debian Free Software
Incidentally, for all this to make sense, it seems that your concept
of "open source" is somewhat unorthodox if it does not include the
right to use the software internally in a business. That is different
from the concept advocated by the Open Source Initiative - see section
6 of the Open Source Definition  which happens to be identical to
section 6 of the DFSG. You are, of course, entitled to use the term
with a different meaning (as the OSI was denied trademark protection
on "open source"), but we suggest that you make it a little clearer if
in fact you do not grant the full range of rights normally associated
with the QPL.
> The only reason the pro-version exists is that if the additional
> features were included as well in the standard version there would
> be very few persons willing to purchase the license.
There is no problem with your offering a package with more
functionality under a non-free license.
> Any ides to help me make a better setup ?
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 to do is to revise the language on your web
site to reflect that policy.
Afterwards you should consider taking Edmund's advice and use the GPL
instead of the QPL. This is not of immediate importance, because we do
currently consider the QPL a DFSG-free license. However, recently
there have been suggestions on debian-legal that this was the wrong
decision, som it is possible that within the nearish future we will
decide that QPL was never free after all and so start removing
QPL-licensed software from Debian.
Henning Makholm "... and that Greek, Thucydides"