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 with dual licensing.
On 10 January 2011 20:46, Jan Schenkel <janschen...@yahoo.com> wrote: > --- On Sat, 1/8/11, David Bovill <da...@vaudevillecourt.tv> 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 > source licenses which the community may provide better insight into. > > Let's assume I want to make available a new Quartam Smurf Library for > LiveCode, as open source. Ignore the Intellectual Property rights of Peyo > for a second, it's just the first thing I could think of - I'll leave it up > to the psychologists on this list to examine my insanity from that :-) > > Anyway, Quartam Smurf Library offers a set of commands and functions to do > with Smurfs. Let's say it covers the original 100 Smurfs. I want to give the > rest of the community the opportunity to add support for the newer Smurfs > that were added afterwards. The library has a number of 'core' commands and > functions that are scripted as 'private' and are used by all 'public' > commands and functions for the initial 100 Smurfs. > > My main goals: > - to make sure that I get proper attribution for my work > - to make sure that anyone who uses the library shares their modifications > with the rest of the community > - to run an open community around the library to incorporate the welcome > changes into new versions of the library > - to also accommodate those LiveCode-using developers whose corporate > policy prevents them from using anything GPL/LGPL/AGPL, by offering it in a > commercial license as well > > My main concerns: > - it needs to cover Desktop, Mobile, Server and Web plug-in deployments > - it shouldn't be a viral license that requires the whole program to be > open source under the same license, just the modifications and extensions of > the library > - it should prevent commercial 'wrapping' of the library (*) > > (*) what I mean by wrapping: some devious individual could decide to make a > derivative version of Quartam Smurf Library, exposing just those core > 'private' commands and functions by making them 'public' - thus enabling > them to write a 'wrapper' library which is closed source and commercial, not > sharing their extensions but making a profit of the work of the > contributors. > > In short, I'm willing to share my initial work, but others should also > share their modifications and extensions with the community. > > So far I haven't found the right license for this. > - MIT is too liberal for this, I think > - GPL is viral so out of the question > - LGPL is close but its goal conflicts with Server and Web plug-in > - AGPL has also turned out to be viral, after re-reading it a few times > - MPL might be a candidate, but I'm not sure if it covers all the concerns > > Can you guys and gals help me out? > > Thanks in advance for the feedback! > > Jan Schenkel. > ===== > Quartam Reports & PDF Library for LiveCode > www.quartam.com > > ===== > "As we grow older, we grow both wiser and more foolish at the same time." > (La Rochefoucauld) > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > 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 > _______________________________________________ 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
