Licensing AGAIN [was: Sharing FontLab Plugin]

[Robert Mann]

I also don't see anything wrong with the GPL license being attached to LC
community.
i've although thought it was a great way to differentiate.

And i find absolutely right and positive that any standalone built with the
community version be under GPL, as far as the code is concerned.

But, having a little legal background, I never thought that LC would try and
extend GPL by an interpretation of GPL which is highly debatable, both
technically and on the ground of it.
a) to Script language, script files and stack files. 
b) to media content of a stack

So i double on that Mar Wilcox again : the issue is not on GPL & livecode
but on the interpretation/extrapolation and revendication that Livecode
seems to make on :
a) to Script language, script files and stack files. 
b) to media content of a stack

Choosing a basic minimalistic interpretation of GPL would 
-- make things fluid again eliminating all that fuss we (rightly) make here.
-- allow LC and all of us to communicate and do things with the education
community
-- give back freedom to use code in many ways
basically boost NRJ around!!! 

LC is totally in power on that point and can make the sky blue again in just
one little paragraph!
or keep it grayish for years and years and again, and again... 






--
View this message in context: http://runtime-revolution.278305.n4.nabble.com/On-rev-support-problem-tp4706664p4706891.html
Sent from the Revolution - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.