On 02.08.2004, at 13:45, Kevin Miller wrote:
Would it make sense to open source it?
It is now open source.
correct me if I m wrong, but how can a part of rev be open source without a GPL License for rev?
As I understand I can make my scripted code free (open source), but every open Source developer has to buy a rev license to write code?
Will they do that? (How knows this guys?)
Is there any intention in RR to make the engine open source?
I m very interested in that, because I m changing my Trainingsmaps� to open source.
There may also be merit in dual licensing (see <http://www.onlamp.com/pub/wlg/4715>).
Just as one can release open source wares that require a proprietary OS to run (like Mozillla on OS X or Windows), there are open source licenses that govern components which are free for use within systems that may not be.
The MetaCard IDE uses a variant of the X11 license (sometimes called the MIT license), but there's also the LGPL ("Lesser GNU Public License") and others.
In the US, the creator of a work is the copyright holder and can release a work under any terms desired -- you can even make up a new license if there isn't one that covers your needs (enforcement, however, may be another matter <g>).
While there are competing factions in the open source world with varying opinions about licenses, I personally admire the work and dedication of Richard Stallman and tend to use licenses GNU.org considers "compatible". A good overview of various open source licenses is at:
<http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html>
-- Richard Gaskin Fourth World Media Corporation ___________________________________________________ Rev tools and more: http://www.fourthworld.com/rev _______________________________________________ use-revolution mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution
