Gut reaction is "lol no" but I'm wondering if there's a point to be made regarding those who want to write scripts and then distribute them.
I pasted my reply below, does anyone here see anything factually incorrect with what I'm saying here?
original issue: https://gitlab.domainepublic.net/bipscr ... /issues/11I've seen large companies with no qualms distributing highly proprietary Java code to be run on the GPL'd OpenJDK, but the latter has a linking exception I believe which may make the difference here. If that's true I'm open to such an exception for the bipscript intrepreter as well.
- core bipscript interpreter is GPL and likely to stay that way due to depedencies and the community it's born from, commercial licensing can always be arranged (sorry not sorry to those simply seeking free beer)
- bipscript xt extensions can be any license, in the same way proprietary plugins can be loaded in Ardour (a GPL'd DAW)
- bipscripts themselves are generally used to create music as output - this music is 100% owned by its creator and can be distributed as they choose, the same as music made with Ardour
- bipscripts that are themselves software to be distributed - well that's a big question mark (?). Would the viral nature of GPL apply? Or could the scripts themselves be distributed as BSD or proprietary software?