SimpleBLE is licensed under GPLv3, which explicitly allows commercial usage
SimpleBLE requires that you obtain a commercial license to use it in a commercial setting
These conflict, no? If not then I still see a problem.
'commercial setting' doesn't seem well defined to me.
The key factor is the use of the library as a component in a revenue-generating or business-advancing context, irrespective of whether the library itself is sold or offered as a standalone product.
Say I develop a free (as in $0) and open-source app which uses SimpleBLE. The source code is available and I comply with all GPLv3 requirements.
What if that app is developed under a for-profit company? Does that imply a commercial setting? How exactly do you define use of the library as a component in a revenue-generating or business-advancing context? Do donations and sponsorships count?
Also, have you been requiring that contributors agree to a CLA before merging pull requests? If not, then it isn't possible to offer SimpleBLE without GPLv3 restrictions unless you get all contributors to agree to a CLA.
In LICENSE.md:
'commercial setting' doesn't seem well defined to me.
Say I develop a free (as in $0) and open-source app which uses SimpleBLE. The source code is available and I comply with all GPLv3 requirements. What if that app is developed under a for-profit company? Does that imply a commercial setting? How exactly do you define
use of the library as a component in a revenue-generating or business-advancing context? Do donations and sponsorships count?Also, have you been requiring that contributors agree to a CLA before merging pull requests? If not, then it isn't possible to offer SimpleBLE without GPLv3 restrictions unless you get all contributors to agree to a CLA.