Open Source Licence (LGPL or GPL)

[David Bovill]

Dave Cragg wrote:

> 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.
> 

Good point. RunRev do not have a clear policy regarding these libraries 
(which is one reason i think there are not more quality user contributed 
libraries). They *should* at some time take a hard look at this, but 
right now my guess is they've got other things on their plate. This is a 
loss to the community, which I am sure they would be more than happy for 
us to take an initiative on.

> (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.)
> 

It would seem clear to me that if the MC IDE is open source and the MC 
IDE contains as is libURL then libURL is open source - we just need to 
decide on a license. Dave if you are making user contributions to libURl 
and not signing over copyright to RunRev for each change then this can 
cause a problem for RunRev over who owns the copyright of the aggregate 
work. A clear open source licence protects RunRev and us from these type 
of issues.