Invalid license claim in the README

[petterreinholdtsen]

The README currently states:

The library is released under GPLv3 licence for research and private use, for any kind of commercial licensing or use, please contact Piql AS.

The GPL v3 licence is quite clear that anyone must be allowed to use the software and for any purpose, so claiming the license is GPL v3 only for some purposes and use cases is contradicting the GPL licence. In short, it can not be GPL v3 only for research and private use.

Is the intention to provide dual licencing like Qt and others? Then perhaps this could be rephrased to something like this:

The library is released under GPLv3 licence.  If you want a closed source commercial licence, please contact Piql AS.

[slaymaker1907]

Additionally, since they rely on GPL libraries this probably violates the license of those libraries.

[petterreinholdtsen]

Any plans to address this issue?

[doggodanubus]

I'm not sure if you can GPLV3 if there is a patent? I've not looked at it closely.

[petterreinholdtsen]

[doggodanubus]

I'm not sure if you can GPLV3 if there is a patent? I've not looked at it closely.

Which patent did you have in mind? I believe one can use GPLv3 if there are patents. <URL: https://www.gnu.org/licenses/quick-guide-gplv3 > have this to say about patents: "We update the GPL to protect its copyleft from being undermined by legal or technological developments. The most recent version protects users from three recent threats: [...] * Discriminatory patent deals: Microsoft has recently started telling people that they will not sue free software users for patent infringement—as long as you get the software from a vendor that's paying Microsoft for the privilege. Ultimately, Microsoft is trying to collect royalties for the use of free software, which interferes with users' freedom. No company should be able to do this. [...] Stronger Protection Against Patent Threats In the 17 years since GPLv2 was published, the software patent landscape has changed considerably, and free software licenses have developed new strategies to address them. GPLv3 reflects these changes too. Whenever someone conveys software covered by GPLv3 that they've written or modified, they must provide every recipient with any patent licenses necessary to exercise the rights that the GPL gives them. In addition to that, if any licensee tries to use a patent suit to stop another user from exercising those rights, their license will be terminated. What this means for users and developers is that they'll be able to work with GPLv3-covered software without worrying that a desperate contributor will try to sue them for patent infringement later. With these changes, GPLv3 affords its users more defenses against patent aggression than any other free software license." I belive the copyright issue is more problematic. It would be an interesting court case if someone used the boxing software commercially according to the terms of the GPLv3, and claimed that rejecting them this right would be violating the GPL and doing so would deny Piql the right to use any GPLv3 licensed programs and GPL licensed libraries.

…

-- Happy hacking Petter Reinholdtsen