Open Source Licence (LGPL or GPL)

[Dave Cragg]

At 1:03 am -0700 10/9/03, Richard Gaskin wrote:
>Scott Raney wrote:
>
>>  A couple of points on the license-type debate:
>>  1) We don't really care what license you use: anything from public domain
>>  (least restrictive) to Artistic License (what PERL uses) to GPL (most
>>  restrictive) would be fine.
>>  2) A concern with using GPL is that anything moved into your application
>>  with the "Resource Mover" results in some of the virus-like aspects of GPL
>>  kicking it (i.e., you'd be required to release a version of your app without
>>  those stacks so the end-user could replace them).  This makes LGPL a better
>>  bet, if something even this restrictive is desired.
>
>If Scott's not interested in picking a license I'm inclined to advocate
>public domain.

I'm for this too.

One possible problem not discussed so far is the inclusion of libUrl 
with the IDE. The same (identical) library script is distributed with 
Rev, and I don't imagine they would like it to be covered by any of 
the more restrictive licenses. (And I don't suppose it could be.) The 
status of libUrl is not entirely clear, but when it was first 
started, I know Scott saw it as a public domain library. RunRev 
subsequently took over responsibility (and sponsorship) of the 
library. I can't see RunRev agreeing to a GPL kind of license for 
libUrl at least.

(By the way, I'll continue to make any updates for libUrl available 
for the MC IDE. I guess these will continue to be posted on the 
RunRev site, but when a site is finally settled for the MC IDE, I 
suppose that would be a more appropriate location.)

Cheers
Dave