Suggestions for releasing to Open Source

[Andre Garzia]

Mark,

Please correct me if I am wrong but if he isn't linking against tightvnc
libs then he can simply offer the tightvnc source and license his souurce as
MIT or BSD. Bundling gpl software along with your own is ok as long as you
distribute the source for the gpl part. If he is not bundling but has an
external made then the external source must be gpl as well but since
externals are dynamically loaded, the stack doesn't need to be gpl. Right?

--
enviado do meu Nexus S - android is freedom.
http://andregarzia.com :: all we do is code
http://fon.nu :: minimalist url shortening
On May 16, 2011 9:51 AM, "Mark Schonewille" <
m.schonewille at economy-x-talk.com> wrote:
> Richmond, Andre, Derek,
>
> It is not true that you can't release your LiveCode stacks as open source,
because the LiveCode development tool is not open source. Unless the license
explicitly states that the development tool has to be open source, you can
safely release your LiveCode stack as open source. The fact that the Ubuntu
people don't like the need for a commercial tool doesn't mean that there is
no way to release your stacks as open source. Within the LiveCode community,
stacks released as open source can be very valuable.
>
> TightVNC is GNU GPL. This includes an obligation to offer the source code.
Derek can offer his version of TightVNC together with the source code of his
stacks as GNU GPL. Anyone who happens to have a LiveCode license can take
this source code and work with it. It might be necessary to include a
special permission to link source code with non-system libraries (GNU GPL
v3:7) or to include your own text, an example of which you may find
http://qery.us/qb here (GNU GPL v2).
>
> It is a real shame that GNU GPL has become that complicated. If you're
making something from scratch and are not bound to GNU GPL, I'd use Creative
Commons or invent something simple of your own.
>
> Andre is right that stacks can be released as FOSS, but Derek still needs
a solution to release his stacks as FOSS while connected to a GNU GPL
product as well as a proprietary product. An exception added to his own GNU
GPL should sort that out.
>
> --
> Best regards,
>
> Mark Schonewille
>
> Economy-x-Talk Consulting and Software Engineering
> Homepage: http://economy-x-talk.com
> Twitter: http://twitter.com/xtalkprogrammer
> KvK: 50277553
>
> New: Download the Installer Maker Plugin 1.6 for LiveCode here
http://qery.us/ce
>
> On 16 mei 2011, at 20:42, Richmond Mathewson wrote:
>
>> On 05/16/2011 09:13 PM, Mark Schonewille wrote:
>>> Richmond,
>>>
>>> That's not true. You could at least release your source code as
open-source. There are open-source licenses that allow this. If you think no
license fits, then simply invent your own.
>>>
>>> --
>>> Best regards,
>>>
>>> Mark Schonewille
>>>
>> What's not true? Certainly the Livecode engine IS Closed Source,
certainly Ubuntu went
>> "all funny" when I offered them 25 RunRev standalones for Linux because
of the closed nature of the
>> engine.
>>
>> Now, as far as I understood Derek Bump's posting; he has developed
something which contains
>> Open Source software, and part of the licensing attached to that software
requires anything developed with it to also be Open Source . . .
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> use-livecode mailing list
> use-livecode at lists.runrev.com
> Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your
subscription preferences:
> http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode