What exactly does "one developer" mean?

We have everything that runs on our servers checked into SubVersion, which would include ActiveWidgets if we use it. Every developer (and QA person) runs their own web server on localhost for debugging. So this means that the ActiveWidgets code will be on every developer's machine. A single developer would be working on the code related to ActiveWidgets, but are we violating the license if (a) other developers run the code on their own machines while working with our app, (b) our QA people dive into ActiveWidgets code when tracking down bugs, or (c) another developer ends up fixing a bug in that code at some point? (this is for an in-house project, if that matters)

We might be willing to spend $400 for the one developer working with ActiveWidgets, but we wouldn't want to spend it for every one of our developers and QA people.

Thanks

Each developer who works with ActiveWidgets library requires a license.

'Developer' in this context means anyone who is making changes in your application source code, including markup (HTML/XML) or any programming language.

'Works with' means that the presence of ActiveWidgets is essential for this person to do his job.

Just having AW code in SVN does not require a license if the person does not interact with AW in any way.

In your example -
a). yes, the license is required
b). no, the license is not required (assuming the QA person does not modify your application source code)
c). yes, the license is required

Unfortunately, that means that you're out of the running for us. It's not worth paying 6x for the product (for the site license) and we're not going to ignore your license. We also wouldn't want to have to suddenly buy an extra license if the developer using ActiveWidgets was on vacation and a bug needed to get fixed.

Think about it -- when you're building a web service, every developer will be running the entire service on their machine -- database, middle tier, front end, and web browser. You can't use the service without using all the pieces, even the pieces you're not personally working on, so, according to your definition, every piece is essential for developers to do their job. And good QA people are likely to modify code, to add asserts and logging, for example.

Having to pay the license fee for every developer and every QA person pushes your price from high but reasonable (compared with free alternatives) to unreasonable.

An alternative way to license is:
developer license = "1 developer/unlimited apps"
app license = "1 app/unlimited developers"
site license = "unlimited developers/unlimited apps".

You have the first and last. Please consider adding the middle one.