Re: Creative Common Copyright Notice in Standalones

On 16 January 2011 15:56, Jan Schenkel wrote: > > Heh, I'm also curious about these things and want to make sure I take the > right decision - and the only way to find out is by asking questions :-) > > So, assuming the Engine and Externals are OK, should we ask RunRev HQ for > an official defini

Re: Creative Common Copyright Notice in Standalones

--- On Sun, 1/16/11, David Bovill wrote: > On 16 January 2011 13:29, Jan > Schenkel > wrote: > > > It does look like we have have little choice if we > want strong protection. > > Like you, I'm leaning towards the xGPL licenses, > combined with a closed > > commercial license. > > > > What worri

Re: Creative Common Copyright Notice in Standalones

On 16 January 2011 13:29, Jan Schenkel wrote: > It does look like we have have little choice if we want strong protection. > Like you, I'm leaning towards the xGPL licenses, combined with a closed > commercial license. > > What worries me about it, is its viral nature in combination with LiveCode

Re: Creative Common Copyright Notice in Standalones

--- On Tue, 1/11/11, David Bovill wrote: > > [snip] > > This sounds like the same mix of requirements that I think > will work best > for a number of developers. That is: > >    1. Open source libraries that you can use > freely, modify, and combine >    with other peoples source code from the

Re: Creative Common Copyright Notice in Standalones

In general Jan, I share your aims here, and there is I feel a clear solution, some of which can be addressed by choosing the right license, but I' still like to get clear about some of the things you are trying to do. Maybe we can talk on Skype, as I'm doing quite a lot of work in this area at the

Re: Creative Common Copyright Notice in Standalones

--- On Mon, 1/10/11, David Bovill wrote: > Hi Jan _ I don't quite get the exact > nature of the private public > distinction you are making - si the source code visible, or > are you > referring to a license distinction. From a casual reading > it looks a bit > like there is a contradiction in the

Re: Creative Common Copyright Notice in Standalones

--- On Mon, 1/10/11, Warren Samples wrote: > On Mon, 2011-01-10 at 12:46 -0800, > Jan Schenkel wrote: > > --- On Sat, 1/8/11, David Bovill > wrote: > > > [snip] > > > > > > Thanks for taking the time to respond - my > interest is in > > > real business > > > models built around licenses, or oth

Re: Creative Common Copyright Notice in Standalones

Hi Jan _ I don't quite get the exact nature of the private public distinction you are making - si the source code visible, or are you referring to a license distinction. From a casual reading it looks a bit like there is a contradiction in there somewhere - but that most of what you want can be got

Re: Creative Common Copyright Notice in Standalones

On Mon, 2011-01-10 at 12:46 -0800, Jan Schenkel wrote: > --- On Sat, 1/8/11, David Bovill wrote: > > [snip] > > > > Thanks for taking the time to respond - my interest is in > > real business > > models built around licenses, or other legal innovations - > > and not the > > politics :)** > > >

Re: Creative Common Copyright Notice in Standalones

--- On Sat, 1/8/11, David Bovill wrote: > [snip] > > Thanks for taking the time to respond - my interest is in > real business > models built around licenses, or other legal innovations - > and not the > politics :)** > Well, now that the topic has come up, I have a few questions regarding open

Re: Creative Common Copyright Notice in Standalones

Just keeping to the parts: On 8 January 2011 15:51, Richard Gaskin wrote: > Had you chosen a Creative Commons license instead of GPL, you would have > been able to share your work just as broadly to as many people as before, > but you would also have had the option of requiring that any additio

Re: Creative Common Copyright Notice in Standalones

David Bovill wrote: On 8 January 2011 00:17, Richard Gaskin wrote: There are scenarios for meaningful sharing that aren't addressed by GLP-compatible licenses, so while it would be desirable if there were fewer licenses in the world, the diversity of needs seems to require equally diverse term

Re: Creative Common Copyright Notice in Standalones

Hi Richard - a few minor points / corrections: On 8 January 2011 00:17, Richard Gaskin wrote: > > > As a practical example I would not be able to submit my code > > libraries or code I have form other people to the revIgnitor > > project, as the license was hand crafted. Ralf changing the > > li

Re: Creative Common Copyright Notice in Standalones

David Bovill wrote: > The main issue for us here is about mixing code projects together > in ways in which the code can be used in clear ways for commercial > and non-commercial projects - removing the uncertainty. Let's just > make sure the code bases can be mixed together. If someone uses a > "

Re: Creative Common Copyright Notice in Standalones

On 7 January 2011 16:25, Richard Gaskin wrote: > > One of the reasons so many developers like the Creative Commons license is > that there are many flavors to cover a broader range of specific usage > rights than GPL, and certainly X11, affords. > > The goals of sharing code can cover a broad spe

Re: Creative Common Copyright Notice in Standalones

David Bovill wrote: The most important things to do with regard to licenses is to avoid incompatibility and proliferation of licenses as this prevents people remixing code from various projects. I'd strongly encourage you to use a GPL compatible license

Re: Creative Common Copyright Notice in Standalones

The most important things to do with regard to licenses is to avoid incompatibility and proliferation of licenses as this prevents people remixing code from various projects. I'd strongly encourage you to use a GPL compatible license