I also don't see anything wrong with the GPL license being attached to LC community. i've although thought it was a great way to differentiate.
And i find absolutely right and positive that any standalone built with the community version be under GPL, as far as the code is concerned. But, having a little legal background, I never thought that LC would try and extend GPL by an interpretation of GPL which is highly debatable, both technically and on the ground of it. a) to Script language, script files and stack files. b) to media content of a stack So i double on that Mar Wilcox again : the issue is not on GPL & livecode but on the interpretation/extrapolation and revendication that Livecode seems to make on : a) to Script language, script files and stack files. b) to media content of a stack Choosing a basic minimalistic interpretation of GPL would -- make things fluid again eliminating all that fuss we (rightly) make here. -- allow LC and all of us to communicate and do things with the education community -- give back freedom to use code in many ways basically boost NRJ around!!! LC is totally in power on that point and can make the sky blue again in just one little paragraph! or keep it grayish for years and years and again, and again... -- View this message in context: http://runtime-revolution.278305.n4.nabble.com/On-rev-support-problem-tp4706664p4706891.html Sent from the Revolution - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com. _______________________________________________ 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
