Hacker News Reader

Something can be open source, yet not copy-left. For example, the MIT licence allows commercial usage and modification.

True, in this case we decided to have GPL because we love to also get back new developments on ImagePlay for our students.

On the other hand we are open regarding Plug-Ins.

I hope this makes sense? At the end we are not specialist on the legal end of things.

Personally, I think it's a shame. GPL generally puts me off as the licence is too complex for me to understand and I don't understand in what situations I can and cannot use it. MIT, BSD etc are simple enough that even without a legal brain I can get the gist of what I can and cannot do.

If I take the MIT license and add a single word, and it would make it incompatible with every other license out there.

I don't understand your point? You can change the GPL licence too if you were so inclined?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com