Creative Common Copyright Notice in Standalones

[Web Admin Himalayan Academy]

  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