4 ms·
> 3) covered by stupid licenses Hello, CGAL.
by santaclaus 10y ago
> 3) covered by stupid licenses
Hello, CGAL.
- ska 10y agoWhat is stupid about the CGAL licenses? If I understand it correctly - If you are using it academically or in free software you can use it. If you are using it commercially you can pay a reasonable license fee and use it. Sounds like a better solution than most; what am I missing?
- jtuente 10y agoHonestly, the worst part of CGAL licensing is figuring out which parts actually require the commercial license, since most of the simpler structures in CGAL can be used freely in a commercial product.
- ska 10y agoI haven't looked for years, but as I recall very little was LGPL other than the core, and the rest was licensed by module. Even if you just licensed the whole thing it wasn't particularly expensive.