Licensing AGAIN [was: Sharing FontLab Plugin]

[Dr. Hawkins]

On Fri, Jul 22, 2016 at 7:10 AM, Rick Harrison <harrison at all-auctions.com>
wrote:

> If the GPL license is overly restrictive perhaps LC should consider
> releasing the
> community version under a license similar to that used by PostgreSQL, MIT,
> or create it’s own Community License.  Clearly what they are doing now is
> creating a mess that is causing confusion in the marketplace for them.
>

I think the GPL is a horrid choice, as it's incompatible with every other
license (except relabeled GPL).

A non-viral license, however, would be a horrible choice for livecode--or
any other company whose business is selling the code.

When you look at the projects that have free rather than viral open source
licenses and corporate "owners", you find things such as Darwin and Swift
that the parent needs to exist, but is "in support" of the actual product.
Apple needs such a language, and needs such a Unix under its Mac interface.

If LC was put under a free license, a competitor could pop up overnight
selling ZombieCode, with enhancements that it didn't share back to
LiveCode.  With a viral license, however, ZC has to stay under the same
license.  (A viral license that doesn't require revealing the code is
conceivably possible, but I've never seen one, and don't see the point in
one)


-- 
Dr. Richard E. Hawkins, Esq.
(702) 508-8462