Animation library+open source
ambassador at fourthworld.com
Tue Aug 3 12:05:20 EDT 2004
Wolfgang M.Bereuter wrote:
> On 02.08.2004, at 13:45, Kevin Miller wrote:
>>> Would it make sense to open source it?
>> It is now open source.
> correct me if I m wrong, but how can a part of rev be open source
> without a GPL License for rev?
> As I understand I can make my scripted code free (open source), but
> every open Source developer has to buy a rev license to write code?
> Will they do that? (How knows this guys?)
> Is there any intention in RR to make the engine open source?
> I m very interested in that, because I m changing my Trainingsmaps© to
> open source.
There may also be merit in dual licensing (see
Just as one can release open source wares that require a proprietary OS
to run (like Mozillla on OS X or Windows), there are open source
licenses that govern components which are free for use within systems
that may not be.
The MetaCard IDE uses a variant of the X11 license (sometimes called the
MIT license), but there's also the LGPL ("Lesser GNU Public License")
In the US, the creator of a work is the copyright holder and can release
a work under any terms desired -- you can even make up a new license if
there isn't one that covers your needs (enforcement, however, may be
another matter <g>).
While there are competing factions in the open source world with varying
opinions about licenses, I personally admire the work and dedication of
Richard Stallman and tend to use licenses GNU.org considers
"compatible". A good overview of various open source licenses is at:
Fourth World Media Corporation
Rev tools and more: http://www.fourthworld.com/rev
More information about the Use-livecode