Licensing AGAIN [was: Sharing FontLab Plugin]

[Mark Wilcox]

On Fri, Jul 22, 2016, at 03:10 PM, Rick Harrison 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.

That would be fatal to LiveCode's business. No-one would need a
commercial license if the engine was MIT licensed.

I don't actually have any problem with the GPL for a dual-licensing
model. It's pretty tried and tested. Qt has been doing it for very many
years and yet they have never tried to claim any copyright in their
users software, they just insist that a program distributed with the GPL
version of the Qt libraries is released under a GPL-compatible license.
Developers working with the GPL version can create plugins for others
and sell them commercially, the user of those plugins would need to get
their own commercial license to make use of them in a closed source app.
The Qt company folks view this as very positive activity in their
ecosystem.

-- 
  Mark Wilcox
  mark at sorcery-ltd.co.uk