Working as a hired consultant in many teams with colleague developers I have never met one developer who did not "steal" some code from whatever resource (internet, books etc) to use it in a project that's needs to get done. Every developer looks around to prevent inventing the wheel again over and over. To keep a tracklist of used handler/scripts from community license developers during the development process is for me an insane option. More insane to force to publish it under a GPL/3 license after if you are developing a commercial product with a paid closed source indy option. My grandfather who was a fighter (and surviver) in WorldWar II has told me one lesson to remember forever: If you stay between the lines you will never move on (that is what sheeps are doing), you have to walk on it and even sometimes you have to cross the lines to go further and take the consequences after and deal with it.
Just my 2 cents. Erik -----Original Message----- From: use-livecode [mailto:use-livecode-boun...@lists.runrev.com] On Behalf Of Kay C Lan Sent: vrijdag 22 juli 2016 06:57 To: How to use LiveCode <use-livecode@lists.runrev.com> Subject: Re: Licensing AGAIN [was: Sharing FontLab Plugin] On Thu, Jul 21, 2016 at 5:54 AM, Peter TB Brett <peter.br...@livecode.com> wrote: > > - If the app is closed-source, this definitely violates the LiveCode > Indy end user license agreement and probably also the LiveCode > Community copyright license. > Just to clarify, what you are saying is: if ANY Business or Indy license holder has taken ANY handler/script submitted to this List or the Forums, and that handler was the creation of a Community License holder, that handler is subject to GPLv3 so the released software CAN NOT be closed and can NOT end up on Apples' store. OR, to put it another way: Business and Indy license holders should ONLY accept help, in the form of scripts/handlers, from other Business and Indy license holders, if they intend to create a closed app that does not raise the ire of the FSF. OR, to put in another way: Business and Indy license holders who include scripts/handlers created by Community License holders, MUST release their work under GPL v3; which can NOT be released via Apple. It is important to understand that the Company's (LC) 'intention' can NOT deviate from the GPL v3 legal requirements which the FSF will enforce, i.e. just because the Company (LC) would like to interpret a paragraph one way, and allow a certain situations/circumstances, doesn't mean the FSF (court) will interpret it the same way. > Apple's walled garden is not a fertile pasture for growing Free Software. > If you want to make Free Software apps for mobile devices, target Android. Hmm, I think this is a common misconception of the situation. Apple is more than happy to distribute OSS. I think VLC is an important case to consider. Apple was more than happy to distribute it and many of the code contributors were more than happy for Apple to do that. It was a few zealots at the FSF who pointed out it was not legally possible under GPL v2. So the OSS contributors who wanted VLC on the App Store went ahead and, if I remember correctly, recoded VLC under the less restrictive LGPL v 2.1, but this still upset a few at the FSF (not Apple) so the only way the intention of the VLC community could be fulfilled was to abandon GPL and relicense under the OSS Mozilla Public License v 2.0. Apple is now happily distributing it for them and where it seems to be extremely popular and well received (this last bit based purely on my own assessment that VLC is one of the few apps that I've checked out on the App Store that comes with a bunch of ratings and reviews rather than the ubiquitous "We have not received enough ratings...." blurb). It was the FSF who stunted VLCs growth, not Apple. As Richard has stated, it's very important to consider which OSS license is right for you, some (MIT, BSD, MPL v2.0) offer you the freedom to do what you want, like distribute via Apple, whilst others, notably those from the FSF (GPL), are less permissive and the constraints are actively enforced in court. I think a blog post on this topic would be engaging, a License Guide that lived in the LC Dictionary helpful, using plain English and a infographic/matrix. _______________________________________________ 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
