On 11/11/10 3:56 PM, Mark Wieder wrote:
My take on it from the CC web site
is that it doesn't have specific clauses to cover source and object
code.
http://wiki.creativecommons.org/Frequently_Asked_Questions#Can_I_use_a_Creative_Commons_license_for_software.3F
For an example of how ridiculous open-source license has gotten:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_free_software_licenses
Here are a few options:
The Eiffel Forum License, version 2
http://www.opensource.org/licenses/ver2_eiffel.php
The MIT license:
http://www.opensource.org/licenses/mit-license.php
The BSD license:
http://opensource.org/licenses/bsd-license.php
and my favorite:
WTFPL
http://tinyurl.com/3w6cks
Hmm Mark, thanks, very interesting links, quite an education.
I'm interested in also letting anyone sell any remix of my code/stacks.
Although we are non-profit I don't see it as useful for our runrev
community to block developers who have families to feed from charging
for a product based on some library I did.
(in that vein GPL looks like a nightmare for small companies needing to
earn a living....)
i.e. if one company takes Grapple and (after getting a LiveCode
License) builds standalones and deploys to a publisher, they can charge
if they want to.
OR: if a computer infrastructure support firm ( a real example about to
transpire) is handling all of a publishers' computer needs (network
installation etc.) and tells them about Grapple and they reach out to a
LiveCode developer (because they make a decision that this is over their
heads and if you are going to drop tools in the middle of such a
sensitive environment as an editor-designer work group, they better
work!) and so they reach out to LiveCode developer, then I want to allow
that LiveCode developer to also to be able create any product he or she
wants to from my stacks and charge for it if they want to... the only
thing being that they cannot tell another LiveCode developer it belongs
to them an them alone.
Or put another way I think software patents are ridiculous and I don't
want anyone to wrap their greedy hands around anything I write. If I
want to protect something I will encrypt it.
I don't see that CC prevents sale of anything under that license, but
wouldn't the MIT license be more in line with this intent? And it *is*
designed for software.
Any insights on "problems" with MIT? it *is* a copyleft license too,
like the CC license. Or to ask the question another way... why would
you chose CC over MIT?
Sivakatirswami
_______________________________________________
use-revolution mailing list
[email protected]
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution
