In the Pollen projects I've released so far, I've tried to make the licensing for the code pretty permissive (= more useful for other Pollen-curious folks), but to assert slightly more control over the writing itself.
(For example <https://github.com/otherjoel/thenotepad/blob/master/LICENSE.md>) If you ask me why I did this, the answer in these trivial cases so far is “it made sense at the time.” For any serious work, though, I am wondering how this approach would really shake out. When “the book is a program”, is it ever a) useful or b) legally meaningful to license the prose and the code separately when they are interwoven and distributed together? In the absence of actual precedents, I don't know that I'm expecting anyone to have a definitive answer. And it won’t materially affect me unless I ever get to the point of paying a lawyer to try and enforce a copyright claim. But it seems like something worth discussing if people are going to make *and distribute* Pollen projects. It's also possible that most serious Pollen projects would not distribute source code at all. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Pollen" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to pollenpub+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
