OpenEuphoria

Re: Vote Status #2 + Bob Thompson

• Posted by Vincent <darkvincentdude at yahoo.com> Sep 22, 2006
• 597 views

Jason Gade wrote:

> While I'm currently a Yahoo! user, I don't want to sign up just for the poll.
> 
> Here's my take: I think the C code should be GPL or LGPL. Hmm. Let's go LGPL.
> 
> All of the current Euphoria 2.5 code is public domain. I think any parts coded
> in Euphoria should remain public domain, including libraries and interpreter
> source code.
> 
> Not that I have a high regard for public domain, but just to continue the
> status
> quo. However if any major changes are made then maybe a license change would
> be warranted at that time.
> 
> Source code that was shrouded or bound with versions of Euphoria prior to 3.0
> should continue to work with the version it was shrouded or bound with. I see
> no reason to change the licenses or functionality of prior versions. Newer
> versions
> should do away with the shrouding option, unless the newer version is coded
> to do shrouding with a public/private key method which should be secure.
> 
> That is, only the private key could decode the source code but the public key
> could be used to run the code.

I think the front-end should be get licensed the same as the back-end but maybe
the standard libraries could remain public-domain.

The reason why is what if some smart guy takes our front-end and closes it. We
would only have half of an interpreter and nothing would work. I think LGPL would
be a good license to protect it.


Regards,
Vincent