Roger Guay wrote: > >> Richard, >> >> Please help me out here. I just want to share my work ... > On Fri, Jul 15, 2016 at 1:45 AM, Richard Gaskin <ambassa...@fourthworld.com> wrote: > Gosh, Roger, there's only a hundred or so open source licenses to choose > from - are you lazy? :) > > The options are indeed broad... > > A popular choice ... GPL-compatible and works > equally well for proprietary use is the MIT License... > > In short, it retains your copyright and provides disclaimer of liability, > but presents no restrictions on use. > I've come late to this discussion but this would seem to be an excellent topic for a blog post and even the basis for an official 'Guide' that can be accessed via the Guide tab of the LC8 Dictionary. And as you both (Peter and Richard) represent either side of the fence (The Company and The Community) who I understand are in weekly conference call communication, who better to draft up such a document.
I can only see this sort of advise being required more and more - hopefully a direct reflection of the growth of LC Community. It's certainly not the first time 'What license are you distributing under' has been asked. I see that some 'gentle advise' which steers everyone in the correct direction will ultimately save time, confusion and possible embarrassment. What I suggest is the recommendation of a couple of OSS licenses; ie MIT, Apache >= v2, LGPL >= v3, GPL >= v3, EUPL. To these we need a description of what we can or can't do depending on what LC license we're using (Business, Indy, Community), what environment we are in (Standalone or IDE), what the 'item' is (Stack, plugin, handler, library stack, script only stack) and what our intended target is; $$$, 0$, Apple's App Store/proprietary, anyone who wants it? What would be really nice is some sort of matrix diagram that displays all the inter-relationships. This wikipedia page on OSS License compatibility ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/License_compatibility ) has two nice diagrams to help explain - something similar but LC specific is what is needed. What the Blog/Guide/Matrix should answer: [I DO NOT NEED THE ANSWER TO THESE SCENARIOS, they are rhetorical] If I'm using LC Community, is there any point in attempting to release a standalone with any other license other than Community's own GPL v3? An LC Community user releases a Library stack under MIT. Can a LC Business user then incorporate that stack into their app and release it on the Apple App Store? If and LC Indy user releases a plugin under MIT, can I distribute the plugin with my LC Community App? An LC Community User releases a plugin under LGPL v3 for use with the IDE which auto includes troubleshooting code into your app code. A LC Business user writes an app, the app itself does not include the plugin, but there are many lines of code within the app that have been added automatically by the plugin. Is it OK to distribute this app via the Apple App Store. An LC Community User creates a community stack ShareNStore for storing and sharing handlers. The stack is released under the same GPL v3 as LC Community and a few community members add/modify to improve the stack itself. Many members of the community offer handlers to be included with the stack distribution. Some of the handlers include a remark line such as --released under MIT License Copyright (c) 2016 Pete Programmer, --released under CC BY-SA License Copyright (c) 2016 Henry Handler, but many have no License statement whatsoever. An LC Business user copies several different handlers from the ShareNStore stack into his own stack to be sold on the Apple App Store. Is this OK, particularly for the handlers with no specific license stated. Is it possible they inherit GPL v3 or as they have no License stated are they Public Domain? An LC Community user creates a Script Only stack and releases it to the Public Domain. An LC Community user has a bunch of useful database handlers which he's created and fully tested with Community and he's saved as a text file and licensed to CC BY-SA. On his website he provides instructions on how to convert the text file into a usable library stack. A LC Indy user follows the instructions and includes the library stack in an app to be released on the Apple App Store. These last two I raise because, like the situation of a Business License holder offering to help a Community User get their app past Apple, the official company line may differ to what certain community individuals think is fair or how the license should be interpreted. The License Guide being an ideal place for a statement that the Company does not approve of Business/Indy License holders engaging in this practise. [I DO NOT NEED THE ANSWER TO THESE SCENARIOS, they are rhetorical] In summary, I think a License Guide would be useful because LC is very unique in it's licensing options, how it is used (Standalone/IDE/plugin), the 'things' that it can produce and the way the community shares; all this creates an abundance of permutations that an honest contributor may trip over. As the Guides are now on Github, as OSS Licenses come in and out of favour, the recommendations can be updated, and as new 'scenarios' occur, the Company can provide it's interpretation of what is the right and wrong way to share LC Community created 'stuff' as it's their gift to the Community and they intend for it be shared a certain way. I WOULD LIKE TO AVOID A CLUBHOUSE LAWYERS DISCUSSION, if you'd like to comment I'd hope it would be along the lines of 'License Guide a waste or time, it's all too simple', or 'Yeah, a License Guide would be handy and I hope it covers this or that scenario'. If the majority of posts are 'Yeah', then hopefully the answers will come in the form of an official License Guide. _______________________________________________ use-livecode mailing list use-livecode@lists.runrev.com Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription preferences: http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode