Hi all,

thanks for the feedback! By and by, I feel I should come to a decision.

We saw many diverse contributions, but my impression is that the
majority supports a change away from the GPL.


It seems that Jakob brought it to the point:

On Mon, Aug 02, 2010 at 09:05:05AM +0200, Jakob Eriksson wrote:
> I would love it. I could imagine embedding PicoLisp in some applications.

This is a common view in commercial situations.


For me, one of the most critical points is to avoid confusing potential
users. Simplicity! A license with a lot of rules and legal constructs
generates confusion and uncertainty. The same happens when using
separate licenses for different components of the distribution.

I would simply go with a BSD or MIT style license. The MIT/X11

   http://www.opensource.org/licenses/mit-license.php

seems to be the shortest and least restricted one.

I think I asked all people who contributed, and didn't get any objection
so far. So I'll aim for changing the license to MIT/X11 for the next
(3.0.4) and further releases, starting with the current testing version.

Anybody who possibly contributed, and is against changing the license,
please let me know whether to remove this part from the distribution, or
how to handle it otherwise.

Hopefully, nobody is too disappointed.

Cheers,
- Alex
-- 
UNSUBSCRIBE: mailto:picol...@software-lab.de?subject=unsubscribe

Reply via email to