> Michael Fair: Using the GCC underlying architecture
> will create licensing problems unless we reimplement
> the whole shebang.
> Alain: We must avoid licencing problems.
> What are they in this case?
Anthony: The GPL 'virus'. That is, we'd have to use
the GPL.
Alain: To be considered GPL we would merely have to
insist that derivatives of OpenKard will be open
source too, correct? It might not be a bad idea
considering my MicroSloth Takeover argumentation, and
it would also allow us to legitimately use GCC
bytecodes.
> Michael Fair: Reimplementing the whole thing does
not
> sound like an inviting proposition, so I do not
balme
> one bit.
> Alain: Can we safely use GCC now, then switch later?
Anthony: Legally, probably not :(
Alain: Unless we make our licence GPL-like for
OpenKard and its derivatives.
Alain: Although I have written about this often and
recently, it bears recalling once more that I do NOT
consider software created with the OpenKard authoring
system to be derivative works, and thus would NOT be
have to be open source (e.g. commercial interest ). If
it were otherwise, all documents typed with MicroSoft
Word would be the intellectual property of MicroSoft
(for example).
Alain: The spread of the "GPL-virus" would thus be
limited to OpenKard itself and to OpenKard forks that
are OpenKard-like (direct competitors).
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Bid and sell for free at http://auctions.yahoo.com
