> So If student A writes down some code on text wrangle and gives it to > student B who (thanks folks) have an indy license, that belongs to student B > and he can dispose of it as he wishes, open sourced or closed source.
> In that case it seems to me that it is just a case of confidence between the > group of happy co-contributers, co-thinkers. If student A assigns his copyright in the code he has written to student B, and student B has an Indy license then student B can probably publish on the app store as long as he has written substantial portions of the whole app himself. Student A might not be able to assign all of the copyright in his code to student B (because LiveCode claim it is a derivative work - although I doubt a judge/jury would agree with them, this has not been tested). However, any copyright LiveCode claim in the work is OK because student B already has a license for this anyway. So the GPL is not an issue in this. The issue is the wording of the Indy license, which I was going to check but livecode.com seems to be down. I seem to remember there's an explicit clause against publishing the work of others, unless you've written substantial parts of it yourself. Confidence between co-contributors has no legal basis here. I continue to believe that despite the obvious struggles LiveCode is having getting enough licensing revenue, they're shooting themselves in the foot by trying to over-reach on claiming community users code is a derivative of the engine. Mark _______________________________________________ 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