Scott Raney wrote:
A couple of points on the license-type debate: 1) We don't really care what license you use: anything from public domain (least restrictive) to Artistic License (what PERL uses) to GPL (most restrictive) would be fine. 2) A concern with using GPL is that anything moved into your application with the "Resource Mover" results in some of the virus-like aspects of GPL kicking it (i.e., you'd be required to release a version of your app without those stacks so the end-user could replace them). This makes LGPL a better bet, if something even this restrictive is desired.
If Scott's not interested in picking a license I'm inclined to advocate public domain.
I'm for this too.
One possible problem not discussed so far is the inclusion of libUrl with the IDE. The same (identical) library script is distributed with Rev, and I don't imagine they would like it to be covered by any of the more restrictive licenses. (And I don't suppose it could be.) The status of libUrl is not entirely clear, but when it was first started, I know Scott saw it as a public domain library. RunRev subsequently took over responsibility (and sponsorship) of the library. I can't see RunRev agreeing to a GPL kind of license for libUrl at least.
(By the way, I'll continue to make any updates for libUrl available for the MC IDE. I guess these will continue to be posted on the RunRev site, but when a site is finally settled for the MC IDE, I suppose that would be a more appropriate location.)
Cheers Dave _______________________________________________ metacard mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/metacard
