LGPL is mostly incompatible with REALbasic code/plugins since you
can't replace the LGPL'd bits without access to the entire project -
It almost works for Mach-O plugins since they do exist as libraries
on your hard drive, and users could release a project with everything
but the LGPL'd parts encrypted, but that's more trouble most people
are willing to go through.
BSD or Zlib style licenses are two closed-source friendly licenses to
consider. They're also short/plain English so they're easy to modify
for your own needs, unlike the GPL'n'friends.
Frank.
<http://developer.chaoticbox.com/>
On 9-Oct-06, at 4:15 PM, John Balestrieri wrote:
I will gladly reconsider the license... my initial reasons for
choosing LGPL was not to force people to release their code... :) I
will research this again and try to find something more flexible.
John
On Oct 9, 2006, at 4:01 PM, Dr Gerard Hammond wrote:
Argh no. Please no.
Please allow us to use it in shareware apps without forcing us to
release our code.
At 12:11 PM -0400 9/10/06, Charles Yeomans wrote:
Perhaps you could reconsider releasing it under GPL.
Charles Yeomans
_______________________________________________
Unsubscribe or switch delivery mode:
<http://www.realsoftware.com/support/listmanager/>
Search the archives of this list here:
<http://support.realsoftware.com/listarchives/lists.html>
