On Fri, Jul 22, 2016 at 7:10 AM, Rick Harrison <harri...@all-auctions.com> 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. > I think the GPL is a horrid choice, as it's incompatible with every other license (except relabeled GPL). A non-viral license, however, would be a horrible choice for livecode--or any other company whose business is selling the code. When you look at the projects that have free rather than viral open source licenses and corporate "owners", you find things such as Darwin and Swift that the parent needs to exist, but is "in support" of the actual product. Apple needs such a language, and needs such a Unix under its Mac interface. If LC was put under a free license, a competitor could pop up overnight selling ZombieCode, with enhancements that it didn't share back to LiveCode. With a viral license, however, ZC has to stay under the same license. (A viral license that doesn't require revealing the code is conceivably possible, but I've never seen one, and don't see the point in one) -- Dr. Richard E. Hawkins, Esq. (702) 508-8462 _______________________________________________ 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
