Open Source Licence (LGPL or GPL)

[Richard Gaskin]

David Bovill wrote:

> Richard Gaskin wrote:
>> David Bovill wrote:
>> 
>> 
>>> The simple 
>>> story is to use the LGPL if you may wish to distribute the open source
>>> code with 'linked' libraries (read IDE or engine here) which is not GPL'd.
>> 
>> 
>> Hmmm....  I had never considered including the Rev engine with the MC IDE
>> distribution.  It would be convenient, given the dissection required for OS
>> X, but in my mind it keeps everything clean and simple to distribute only
>> the IDE.
> 
> It's more serious than that: if 'you' can't distribute the the MC IDE
> alongside the engine - then no-one can! Not on a CDROM or anything. The
> license preserves all rights and passes them down the chain intact - for
> better of for worse.

In my admittedly small view, my interest is in maintaining the MC IDE, which
implies distributing stacks only.  The IDE is the only thing that's open
source, and if only for the sake of a simplicity and a small download I
would prefer not to co-mingle GLP'd and non-GPL's stuff in the same distro.

I can't claim to have any useful legal opinion on the matter, merely a
usability one:  in the past, the MC IDE and the engine were released
simultaneously.  Now that the development of these is decoupled it seems
reasonable to decouple the distros as well.

I'll leave it for Rev to describe their own licensing terms.  I just want to
help maintain the MC IDE in the simplest way possible.

-- 
 Richard Gaskin 
 Fourth World Media Corporation
 Developer of WebMerge: Publish any database on any Web site
 ___________________________________________________________
 Ambassador at FourthWorld.com       http://www.FourthWorld.com
 Tel: 323-225-3717                       AIM: FourthWorldInc