On Thu, Oct 23, 2014 at 12:29 PM, David Crayford <[email protected]> wrote:
> All good points yet again. The reality is that I work for a vendor and > they sponsored the project with my wages. That's not a lot of money :) but > they are used to a world in where IP = source code and > anything different is alien to them. I'm very open to suggestions on this > topic because you are quite right, the MIT license will allow using closed > source however you like. The Lua4z source code has been heavily > patched for z/OS which is at least a years worth of effort. I can't see > my company opening that up. But changing the license should be a sweeter > pill to swallow. > > Given the above, the license seems entirely reasonable to me. It is _not_ a FOSS license by any means, nor is it meant to be one. For a "free as in beer" license, it is short, sweet, and not <apparently> legally complex. It certainly is as good as Dovetailed Technology's license for Co:Z. -- The temperature of the aqueous content of an unremittingly ogled culinary vessel will not achieve 100 degrees on the Celsius scale. Maranatha! <>< John McKown ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [email protected] with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
