I blogged about this issue, citing comments here from tom, myself and pamela and mitch resnick has replied on my blog (3rd comment)<br><br><a href="http://billkerr2.blogspot.com/2008/11/scratch-license-disappointment.html">http://billkerr2.blogspot.com/2008/11/scratch-license-disappointment.html</a><br> <br><br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Sat, Nov 15, 2008 at 12:46 PM, Pamela Jones <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:pj2@groklaw.net">pj2@groklaw.net</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;"> Um.  If you are trying to avoid forks, why would you want to allow commercial?  That inevitably results in forks, with some code going dark.<br> <br> Have you thought about LGPL?  It allows commercial entities to use the code without worry while protecting the codebase.<br> <br> I would strongly suggest you speak to Software Freedom Law Center. This is exactly what they do. If you want an MIT-style license, they can help you with this too. It's ultimately up to you, but doing a license without a lawyer never works.<br> <font color="#888888"> <br> PJ</font><div><div></div><div class="Wj3C7c"><br> <br> Bill Kerr wrote:<br> <blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;"> Scratch forum:<br> <a href="http://scratch.mit.edu/forums/viewtopic.php?pid=77320#p77320" target="_blank">http://scratch.mit.edu/forums/viewtopic.php?pid=77320#p77320</a><br> <br> <blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">