Software licenses

[Richard Gaskin]

william humphrey wrote:
> I was wondering. We can release a compiled version of a program written with
> RunRev and Valentina database as "freeware" with the "share alike license"
> but what about opening up the code under a license that allows improvements
> and asks for those improvements back?
> All this would take is distributing an unlocked RunRev stack and a Valentina
> database and then telling the downloaders they have to go buy their copy of
> RunRev and their own copy of Valentina to use it?

That's pretty much how the MC IDE project works.  It's just a bunch of 
stacks - to use it requires Rev.  So the MC IDE stacks are open source, 
allowing some dozen+ people to have lent a hand over the years, provided 
of course they have a licensed Rev install to do so.

> What is the best license to use in this case?

There are many FOSS licenses to choose from, each with its own set of 
tradeoffs.

For the MC IDE project we chose the X11 license because it provides some 
of the simplest definitions of the commercial derivative use it allows, 
with no downstream (what some call "viral") requirements for those works.


-- 
  Richard Gaskin
  Managing Editor, revJournal
  _______________________________________________________
  Rev tips, tutorials and more: http://www.revJournal.com