On Fri, Jul 22, 2016, at 03:10 PM, Rick Harrison wrote: > If the GPL license is overly restrictive perhaps LC should consider > releasing the > community version under a license similar to that used by PostgreSQL, > MIT, > or create it’s own Community License. Clearly what they are doing now is > creating a mess that is causing confusion in the marketplace for them.
That would be fatal to LiveCode's business. No-one would need a commercial license if the engine was MIT licensed. I don't actually have any problem with the GPL for a dual-licensing model. It's pretty tried and tested. Qt has been doing it for very many years and yet they have never tried to claim any copyright in their users software, they just insist that a program distributed with the GPL version of the Qt libraries is released under a GPL-compatible license. Developers working with the GPL version can create plugins for others and sell them commercially, the user of those plugins would need to get their own commercial license to make use of them in a closed source app. The Qt company folks view this as very positive activity in their ecosystem. -- Mark Wilcox m...@sorcery-ltd.co.uk _______________________________________________ use-livecode mailing list use-livecode@lists.runrev.com Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription preferences: http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode
