Calling all open source developers

David Bovill david.bovill at
Tue Oct 20 12:51:42 CDT 2009

2009/10/20 Andre Garzia <andre at>

> GPL - if it touches it then it needs to be FOSS. It is a viral license
> since
> everything that touches it must also be GPL, by touch understand link, if
> it
> links (in the compiler sense) then it needs to be GPL, so I don't think it
> is a good license for Revolution since I don't know how the interaction of
> the standalone builder using closed technology conflicts with the link
> part.
> BSD - my favorite license, it is free for you to do whatever you want and
> thats all, sell it, distribute it, change it, we don't care.
> LGPL - a less fanatic GPL, allows linking, can't tell much about it.
> MIT/X11 - I think it is like the BSD license right?
> CC - many people use creative commons these for software. I've only used it
> for text, but it might work.
> We can always use some (free) lawyer advise...

Creative Commons (CC) is not advised for code as it was not designed for it
legally speaking. Some people use it (mainly as there is no FOSS license I
know of which says "non-commercial"), but it's not advised.

Like most people I'm a fan of BSD/MIT/X11 licenses, and will use them. But
for this project I'm going to go for something more fun, which needs the GPL
and dual licensing for people who want to include closed code in their
applications. So like Björnke suggests there will be a variety of licenses
available for people to use.

The community will be constituted in a minimal and flexible way - it will be
registered in the UK, possibly in Scotland for various reasons. Any
developer can join from any country, by signing and posting in a pdf,
everyone will be protected by limited liability, and partners are equal.
There will be a mechanism in place for people who simply want to join but
not be a full legal partner to be represented in any decision making. The
organisation is needed for the funding applications that I'll be putting in,
and I'll be taking the legal responsibility to file accounts annually, as I
do for a number of other organisations. So no worries there.

2009/10/20 Björnke von Gierke <bvg at>

> What exactly do you propose, do you need a url/host (i have a host, but no
> url, i do know people that have rev-community related urls who would share
> them if there's "real and helpful content").

I've got the hosting space, and a domain to use "", but would
be more than happy to use / work with another domain as long as it was owned
by the community and not an individual or company. I've had the web site up
and taken it down, as frankly it is not important for developers who need
the stuff directly in the Rev IDE - it is an unecessary extra step to have
to go check a web site.

The web site is more for promotional reasons for RunRev, and it can
certainly be got back up - all the code is there to allow direct downloads
and uploads from the IDE to the site. It's not a hacky site I put together,
but based on Trac - so it is minimal and looks good. I've just added the
code for integrating the wiki and repository (svn) into the IDE.

I've done test and written code to export all the Rev documentation to the
site and integrate it, but took it down as there is no explicit license for
this provided by RunRev. I've suggested that RunRev license the docs
themselves under a Creative Commons license - perhaps non-commerical +
attribution, and if they do this I'll upload the text and images to the

Anyway there you go - all the exciting bits (just for Richmond :) And thanks
for all of you that emailed me off list!

More information about the use-livecode mailing list