This document attempts to explain the rational behind the 'gb' licensing.

If you cannot comply with these conditions please do not contribute to gb.

The intention is:

a) All non runtime code is GPL
b) The interpreter code is GPL
c) Runtime code (functions / objects) is Lesser GPL
d) Copyright is assigned to Helix Code, Inc.

The rational is:

a,b) We want to give people freedom, the GPL does that well.

c)   We intend to produce compiled backends, these would need to re-use
     the existing runtime code. It seems reasonable to allow commercial
     use of the compiled code.

d)   In case the licensing needs changing ( some GPL modules need to be
     LGPL'd to conform to the above guidelines ), or in case the use of
     licensing to promote / fund GNOME development becomes appropriate
     ( which seems unlikely at the present time ).

Licensing FAQ:

* Why can't we just LGPL it all and forget the licensing ?

	It is important to keep careful control of the licensing in
case of several possible scenarios:

	a) Merging any / all of it into the GPL gcc project
	b) Dual licensing under MPL for perhaps VBScript in Mozilla
	c) Dual licensing under SCSL for a possible use in Open Office

* But surely you can just sell it to anyone, and they have no need to
contribute back to the GPL version ?

	Correct, however we would not countenance any form of licensing
that does not contribute changes back into the GPL source base.

* But can't you just suddenly close source Gnome Basic ?

	No, this is not possible. All previous version released under
the [L]GPL cannot be un-released :-) any of these could be used as a
basis for a 'fully free' version.