OpenEuphoria

Re: Open source licenses explained

• Posted by Bob Thompson <rthompson at rthompson.karoo.co.uk> Sep 21, 2006
• 693 views

I appreciate it's Rob's call anyway but according to Vincent's last post,
"LGPL is gaining the most traction with 42% of the votes and the 3-clause BSD
license is in second with 28%".

LGPL (thanks for the links Derek) is vague and confusing to me. Am I to
assume that it is more restrictive to programmers in some ways than Rob's
present licence, especially for professionals who might want to sell their
own shrouded programme without letting anyone else see their code? Hence,
many of the people affected in this respect might be those with the skills
and experience required to develop Euphoria. Or have I got it all wrong and
LGPL requires disclosure of source code only for different versions of a
language and it’s libraries?

How would it impact (selling shrouded programs) on programmers using
Win32lib.ew or on the future development of Win32lib.ew itself?

Would people want to continue as before under Rob's present rules
using 2.5 once 3.0 alpha is out, should any ensuing licence restrictions
become unfavourable to them?

As I say, it's Rob's call and it must be a difficult one, letting go for
the sake of Euphoria’s future development. I'm just a little confused by
the poll results and my interpretation of LGPL restrictions.

Regards,

Bob