retroforth@xxxxxxxxxxxxx schrieb am 21.01.06 04:58:17: > > On 1/20/06, aprice@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx <aprice@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > I would suggest that the GPL is well understood and now has court tests > > behind it. Another possibility is a Creative Commons licence > > http://creativecommons.org/. > > I have a dislike of the GPL (and LGPL) in that they require that the > derivatives be distributed under the same license. This for me at > least, is a restriction that I've tried to avoid in the programs I > release as open-source. Yes. At my opinion: GPL really does not meet the needs of a FORTH system. LGPL is not very useful too. > The Creative Commons licenses aren't intended to apply to software. > They do have a "wrapper" for the GPL v2 though. > > > Both are probably better than excerpting bits from something else. In both > > cases you could probably hope to be supported by the EFF or CC should you > > run into problems. > > > > :) > > This is a good point. The other option I've been considering is using > the straightforward BSD or MIT/X11 License. This could be a better > choice in the long run, but I'm not sure... It's better to take the raw BSD/MIT license. People that are interested in licensenses know what a BSD/MIT license is. I do think that the MIT licensense looks better in source code :) > I don't forsee any major problems. In actuality, I've had about a > dozen people inquiring as to what they are allowed to do with Retro. > It seems that the "public domain" as a whole is poorly defined in > today's world. That's right :( I had to change to MIT-license with my HelFORTH since it reflects best what is required by *german* law. Even if I want I could not give much more rights than that which are expressed in MIT. If I dont give a license in Germany, customers always have to ask me before doing anything - which would be annoying for me too... -Helmar > -- > Charles R. Childers > http://www.retroforth.org >