Animation library+open source

Richard Gaskin ambassador at fourthworld.com
Tue Aug 3 11:05:20 CDT 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 
<http://www.onlamp.com/pub/wlg/4715>).

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") 
and others.

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:
<http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html>

-- 
  Richard Gaskin
  Fourth World Media Corporation
  ___________________________________________________
  Rev tools and more:  http://www.fourthworld.com/rev


More information about the use-livecode mailing list