The whole license thing was kind of a pain to figure out as nobody seemed to know the technicalities at the time.
Did you contact one of the various organizations that handle licensing issues for free software communities? -Jonathan
On Thursday, November 12, 2015 8:10 PM, Dan Wilcox <danomatika@gmail.com> wrote:
Seriously though, I *think* I was the one who suggested LGPL when we did this the first time, so it’s on me. The whole license thing was kind of a pain to figure out as nobody seemed to know the technicalities at the time. I personally favor GPL licenses, but they obviously don’t work with Apple’s licensing. At the time, LGPL ver 2 *kind of* could slide through *if* you distributed the source code itself so people could build new versions of the app (which is what I planned to do). LGPL 3 closed that loophole and expr was relicensed as LGPL 3 so here we are. I didn’t want to *assume* the original authors wanted to move away form the GPL that much, so LGPL seemed like a compromise. (Obviously, Apple’s policies are the real issue here.) Anyway, if it’s the same BSD license as pd itself, we should be good … but don;t quote me on that this time. :P
Dan Wilcox @danomatika danomatika.com robotcowboy.com
On Nov 12, 2015, at 5:54 PM, Dan Wilcox danomatika@gmail.com wrote:
Oh, I was just waiting for you to tell us what to do. :D
Dan Wilcox @danomatika danomatika.com robotcowboy.com
On Nov 12, 2015, at 5:49 PM, pd-list-request@lists.iem.at wrote: I suggest this because we've devoted our non-expert energy to licensing issues for expr once already, and it resulted in a license choice that wasn't even compatible with the proposed use-case.