Creative Common Copyright Notice in Standalones

Richard Gaskin ambassador at
Fri Jan 7 11:25:54 EST 2011

David Bovill wrote:
> The most important things to do with regard to licenses is to avoid
> incompatibility and proliferation of licenses as this prevents people
> remixing code from various projects. I'd strongly encourage you to use a GPL
> compatible license<>,
> and preferably one already in use by existing liveCode projects.
> The most common license used in the LiveCode community is the MIT/X11
> license - unless you have real strong reasons to use something else why not
> use that? Ralf Bitter, felt strongly he wanted some additional points, and
> crafted his own license. After discussing compatibility issues with him he's
> changed to using the Apache version 2 license which is GPL compatible - so
> other people can mix their code with it.
> So why not use the MIT/X11? With regard to content - license it separately
> using an appropriate Creative Commons license.

One of the reasons so many developers like the Creative Commons license 
is that there are many flavors to cover a broader range of specific 
usage rights than GPL, and certainly X11, affords.

The goals of sharing code can cover a broad spectrum, from those of the 
purist like rms or those of companies who earn their living with 
proprietary code like Apple, with a nearly infinite variety of needs in 

So while I can appreciate the desire to have the smallest possible 
number of FOSS licenses in use, I can understand when a developer may 
find them inadequate for their particular needs.

For my own needs, I'm disappointed that CC isn't recommended for code. 
I'd release more FOSS code if it were sanctioned for such use (I may 
even still, since others have ignored the caveat and use CC for code 

  Richard Gaskin
  Fourth World
  LiveCode training and consulting:
  Webzine for LiveCode developers:
  LiveCode Journal blog:

More information about the Use-livecode mailing list