May there be some confusion here caused by equating "free software" with
"open source software" that is under a license that requires a "source"
to be distributed as well as the .exe? (And that there is some kind of a
requirement that source to the "runtimes" be released as well or in some
cases the "runtimes" are not free and so the "software cannot be "free")
I must admit that I have not read the entire thread but I often see
"free" and "open source" being equated.
Dave
Ken Ray wrote:
This is getting a bit black-and-white again, and what is
needed is a MIDDLE WAY - a licence (ideally authored under
the supervision and approval of RR) that RR/MC authors can
use when they chose to release their end products made with
licenced versions of RR/MC into the FREE software arena.
My understanding is that standalones you make with RR/MC are yours and you
can do anything you want with them (give them away, sell them, rent them,
etc.). The only thing you *can't* do is to create a standalone application
that also creates applications that would compete with Revolution. So I'm
not sure what this "middle way" is that you are looking for?
Ken Ray
Sons of Thunder Software
Web site: http://www.sonsothunder.com/
Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
_______________________________________________
use-revolution mailing list
use-revolution@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution
--
Dave LeYanna
Director IS
Right to Life of Michigan
www.rtl.org
_______________________________________________
use-revolution mailing list
use-revolution@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution
