Open source, closed source, and the value of code

[Robert Mann]

Thanks all for these precise links references (Richard & Matt in particular), 
I was able to sort of clarify the source of what I felt a problem.
And will share that. [Disclaimer: I'm not a lawyer and this is not legal
advice.] 

[See :: conclusion at the end :: call for an education stack on Livecode
Open source version Licensing issues, from a broader perspective than
strictly code]

Basically, I though the GPL applied to STACKS. What do you think?
Well, hum... seems I got it wrong!

the fuzz came from that quote of the FAQ on livecode site :

Can I sell the open source software I create with the open version of
LiveCode?

Yes. You are free to sell or commercialize anything you create under any
business model you choose. For example you could sell your application, or
give it away for free and charge for service and support. You must include
the complete source code for your software with any software you sell and
you cannot prevent a customer redistributing that source code. // To protect
your intellectual property you need a commercial license for LiveCode.//

Problem : a stack is more than pure code.
And that applies particularlily to the stack/hypercard paradigm that was
made to make books, presentations, etc : be a media presenter.
And in a media presenter, the value is often the various "sources" content
and not the code (go next ! go back...)

So to make it short :: 
-- NO : a commercial license DOES NOT protect your intellectual property in
a stack, it only protects the (original) code in it.
-- YES : with the Open Source Stack, you can sell staks AND forbid anyother
third party to re-sell that stack if it includes content you wish to keep an
eye upon. The GPL license only applies to CODE, not to the STACK as a whole.

In particular, should one really want to protect some work of art, drawings,
text, audio :: these sources can be encrypted and decrypted at viewing,
making it more difficult to copy the files elsewhere;
[although technically where do you put the key ??]

0) So far, I frankly have'nt a clue whether a stack in itself, ei, the file
structure, is within the GPL or not. it's not what one could call "code".
It could be what is called a framework. Who "owns" it? I wonder!

1) Technically, legally, contractually, the Open SOurce GPL license applies
only to the code within the stack.
http://programmers.stackexchange.com/questions/297102/licensing-for-artistic-work-used-inside-gplv3-licensed-software

2) The source files (images, sounds, videos, texts) are not covered. That
means that basically these elements are protected separately by their
corresponding copyrights. [& same for brand names, logos of course]

3) The same rules seem to apply to the outputs produced : not covered by he
GPL license. So if the output incoporates some copyright work of art, it is
protected by copyright.

4) It seems the FSF foundation suggest to dual license the artwork under GPL
license too, but that is not automatic.

???, QUESTION :: has Livecode adapted the license to include all artworks
text etc within a stack into the GPL?? 
*** I do not have that impression, but we'd better validate that!! ***

5) What about the application LAYOUT? Again, that is protectable as a
DESIGN, and should not be covered by the GPL license.

7) For completeness, there is kind of a paradox regarding intepreters/and
scripts. Which in the case of livecode is related to the possibility to
compile too.
-- It seems (as mentionned in matt maier's post) that when you write a
script in a stack and distribute that stack file, the GPL does not apply,
treating that file as "content" rather than program. Hence you retain full
copyright.
But that is a very  theoratical right, since code is exposed and it would be
very difficult to enforce any such rights.. particularly if used in a
commercial closed application!

-- it's only if you "bind" that code within an executable that GPL steps in
and that your code is open sourced by rule and you have to provide access to
the actual code.

6) Finally it is not totally clear if combining an open source stack that
exchanges with a closed source program of any kind besides, is within or out
of the scope of the GPL. 

-- GPL & livecode say :: no way,
-- but GPL elsewhere and lawyers say maybe... let's see in court!

The issue seems discussable both from a technical, legal and ethical point
of views. It kind of depends how the two communicate, how really
(in)dependant the processes are and what the intention is.

it seems that :: if the independant software just adds some quality or
another function, without being central to the working of the main app, it
should stand up. 

e;g. an installer application is admitted as being a separate application,
adding some necessary function to a main application that is otherwise
autonomous.

This could allow to keep some elements of control over a portion of code
elsewhere.
That could be a tricky loophole or get by door license wise and a potential
danger to mothership.
 -- e.g. if a closed pluggin is made with an older commercial version by a
guy one who cannot anyway afford the new price scheme every year, fine
but... to be used wisely if ever.

This is a very similar conclusion to matt Maier

>> The gray area refers to an optional library that *enhances* 
(like a plug-in) the GPL-licensed application. I think that is merely 
discouraged, but not actually blocked. 

>> So it might be worth asking Livecode if they'd be willing to add an 
exception to their GPL license allowing "hobbyists" to distribute a 
closed-source library that is not compiled into the GPL-licensed 
standalone. That would allow "hobbyists" to keep some of their code secret. 
Maybe Livecode could even charge a different amount for that license. 

*==> Such a move seems quite a good idea to me too :: it would allow to
control positively the possible loophole that already IS there, it is a gray
area. And stretch out a hand to hobbyists, who are basically willing to play
the game if they do not feel... messed about!*

Any other views?


-------------------------------------------------------------------
Also,
it would be a good idea to make a simple stack
"your open source livecode explained to the brainies!"
Licensing Facts & ISSUES for your CODE and all other COMPONENTS & SOURCES.

So that these issues are more clear to all of us.

I'd be happy to participate actively if and only of 
-- somme other folks participate too, say min of 3 !? (to validate the
content)
-- and motherships agrees on the principle to include it in the Open Source
Ressources menu for easy consultation once content is approved,
(otherwise, why bother!?)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

[Disclaimer: I'm not a lawyer and this is not legal advice.] 

Matt Maier wrote
> [disclaimer: I'm not a lawyer and this is not legal advice]
> 
> I sympathize with your confusion. There is inherent confusion around the
> differences between "sharing" and "free/open source." In the former case,
> it's just something people do. In the latter case, it is a legal standard.
> 
> Livecode Community uses the GPL
> http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-3.0.en.html
> This is important primarily because your standalones include the Livecode
> engine. Livecode owns the copyright on the engine because their
> programmers
> wrote it and assigned their copyright to the corporation. Leaving it at
> that means that nobody else has any right to anything with regards to the
> Livecode engine. In order to facilitate things like community, and
> learning, and customer development, Livecode is giving you (us) a license
> to use the engine provided certain conditions are followed. In this case,
> the GPL is a viral license in that you are only given a license to use the
> code if the binary you produce with it also uses the GPL (or compatible)
> license. Those are the terms under which Livecode is comfortable allowing
> you to use their intellectual property.
> 
> It's worth mentioning that the language itself doesn't work the same way.
> If you open up a text editor, and write down words which the Livecode
> engine might happen to understand, then you still own the full copyright
> on
> those words. You can do anything you want with them. So the copyright on
> the source of a script-only stack belongs to you. If you compile it into
> the standalone then it must be licensed GPL.
> 
> That means there's a gray area around something like distributing a
> Livecode-compiled binary under the GPL (source must be provided) and also
> providing one or more encrypted scripts which that application can decrypt
> and access if it needs to. As I understand it, the GPL blocks distribution
> of a GPL-licensed executable that *requires* closed-source libraries to
> run, but does allow the copyright holder to write in a specific exception
> if they want to. The gray area refers to an optional library that
> *enhances*
> (like a plug-in) the GPL-licensed application. I think that is merely
> discouraged, but not actually blocked.
> 
> So it might be worth asking Livecode if they'd be willing to add an
> exception to their GPL license allowing "hobbyists" to distribute a
> closed-source library that is not compiled into the GPL-licensed
> standalone. That would allow "hobbyists" to keep some of their code
> secret.
> Maybe Livecode could even charge a different amount for that license.
> 
> [Disclaimer: Again, I'm not a lawyer and this is not legal advice.]
> 
> On Mon, Feb 29, 2016 at 12:31 PM, Robert Mann <

> rman@

> > wrote:
> 
>> hi folks, what is this fuss about?
>>
>> First : no. The allegation about hypercard forcing the open source path
>> on
>> all usage is not true. There was a command to protect a stack ("protect"
>> of
>> course!) . And some interesting pieces of software were sold as protected
>> stacks.
>>
>> And it is precisely that positioning which is about to be abandoned by
>> livecode and why i think it's going backwards (with LESS) rather than
>> going
>> forward (with MORE).
>>
>> What the fuss is NOT :
>> 1) I never questioned the Open Source version of Livecode. it's fantastic
>> and needed.
>> 2) I never questioned the Commercial version. Again it's great and helps
>> going forward.
>>
>> What I questionned is that we're going to be missing an intermediate
>> tool/license that would allow somebody to close SOME of his work at a
>> reasonable cost for a hobbyist. Just as was originally designed in
>> Hypercard.
>>
>> Now most reactions are : if it is to play around just don't bother and
>> distribute as open sourced. Ok guys.
>> But things are not just that "idealistically" simple. Sometimes you just
>> do
>> not know yet. And wish to try out something. Because some people just do
>> not
>> know everything in advance.
>>
>> And on a deeper level, please, do pay attention that it is our whole
>> copyright system which is being thus challenged.
>> -- would you find it "ok" that everything you write with your open
>> sourced
>> word processor be absolutely open sourced? Whatever you write? even if it
>> is
>> your next brilliant patent?
>> -- same question for the various open sourced "tools" that allow to edit
>> pictures, drawings, videos and so on.
>>
>> The fuss about is that in the present state of the license applicable to
>> open sourced livecode,
>> whatever you "write" with live code, if "given" "shared" to anybody else,
>> then becomes open sourced.
>> THe frontier between the tool itself (its modules etc) and the "day to
>> day"
>> work you can produce with it have been blurred. Fine if that is what was
>> really wanted!  But did we really all mean that???
>>
>> Actually it would be interesting to precise what rights get open sourced
>> in
>> a stack :
>> -- do all the media incorporated in a stack become open sourced when
>> shared?
>> -- what about the copyright on the layout of the application ?
>> -- what about the writing of the documentation included?
>> -- what about the logo of the company/individual  included?
>> -- what about the trade marks eventually?
>>
>> What happens if you incoportate in a stack a specific copyright
>> protection
>> for some elements.
>> There would be a kind of conflict there.
>>
>> That is why, I thought it would not be a bad idea to keep a door opened
>> for
>> some protection on some cases even for individuals indies etc. that will
>> not
>> pay 999$ every year.
>>
>> And if you think these question over copyrights and so on are just a do
>> about nothing, for most of us it is, clearly, but for Disney who managed
>> to
>> extend the copyright period by another 25 years and more in effect it is
>> vital. A largest part of our economy will now more and more rely on these
>> rights.
>>
>> Last : are there other computer programming languages that are open
>> sourced
>> and that impose on all programs written with it to be open sourced same
>> way??
>>
>> best to all,
>> Robert
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> View this message in context:
>> http://runtime-revolution.278305.n4.nabble.com/Open-source-closed-source-and-the-value-of-code-tp4701649p4701662.html
>> Sent from the Revolution - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> use-livecode mailing list
>> 

> use-livecode at .runrev

>> 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 at .runrev

> Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your
> subscription preferences:
> http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode


Matt Maier wrote
> [disclaimer: I'm not a lawyer and this is not legal advice]
> 
> I sympathize with your confusion. There is inherent confusion around the
> differences between "sharing" and "free/open source." In the former case,
> it's just something people do. In the latter case, it is a legal standard.
> 
> Livecode Community uses the GPL
> http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-3.0.en.html
> This is important primarily because your standalones include the Livecode
> engine. Livecode owns the copyright on the engine because their
> programmers
> wrote it and assigned their copyright to the corporation. Leaving it at
> that means that nobody else has any right to anything with regards to the
> Livecode engine. In order to facilitate things like community, and
> learning, and customer development, Livecode is giving you (us) a license
> to use the engine provided certain conditions are followed. In this case,
> the GPL is a viral license in that you are only given a license to use the
> code if the binary you produce with it also uses the GPL (or compatible)
> license. Those are the terms under which Livecode is comfortable allowing
> you to use their intellectual property.
> 
> It's worth mentioning that the language itself doesn't work the same way.
> If you open up a text editor, and write down words which the Livecode
> engine might happen to understand, then you still own the full copyright
> on
> those words. You can do anything you want with them. So the copyright on
> the source of a script-only stack belongs to you. If you compile it into
> the standalone then it must be licensed GPL.
> 
> That means there's a gray area around something like distributing a
> Livecode-compiled binary under the GPL (source must be provided) and also
> providing one or more encrypted scripts which that application can decrypt
> and access if it needs to. As I understand it, the GPL blocks distribution
> of a GPL-licensed executable that *requires* closed-source libraries to
> run, but does allow the copyright holder to write in a specific exception
> if they want to. The gray area refers to an optional library that
> *enhances*
> (like a plug-in) the GPL-licensed application. I think that is merely
> discouraged, but not actually blocked.
> 
> So it might be worth asking Livecode if they'd be willing to add an
> exception to their GPL license allowing "hobbyists" to distribute a
> closed-source library that is not compiled into the GPL-licensed
> standalone. That would allow "hobbyists" to keep some of their code
> secret.
> Maybe Livecode could even charge a different amount for that license.
> 
> [Disclaimer: Again, I'm not a lawyer and this is not legal advice.]
> 
> On Mon, Feb 29, 2016 at 12:31 PM, Robert Mann <

> rman@

> > wrote:
> 
>> hi folks, what is this fuss about?
>>
>> First : no. The allegation about hypercard forcing the open source path
>> on
>> all usage is not true. There was a command to protect a stack ("protect"
>> of
>> course!) . And some interesting pieces of software were sold as protected
>> stacks.
>>
>> And it is precisely that positioning which is about to be abandoned by
>> livecode and why i think it's going backwards (with LESS) rather than
>> going
>> forward (with MORE).
>>
>> What the fuss is NOT :
>> 1) I never questioned the Open Source version of Livecode. it's fantastic
>> and needed.
>> 2) I never questioned the Commercial version. Again it's great and helps
>> going forward.
>>
>> What I questionned is that we're going to be missing an intermediate
>> tool/license that would allow somebody to close SOME of his work at a
>> reasonable cost for a hobbyist. Just as was originally designed in
>> Hypercard.
>>
>> Now most reactions are : if it is to play around just don't bother and
>> distribute as open sourced. Ok guys.
>> But things are not just that "idealistically" simple. Sometimes you just
>> do
>> not know yet. And wish to try out something. Because some people just do
>> not
>> know everything in advance.
>>
>> And on a deeper level, please, do pay attention that it is our whole
>> copyright system which is being thus challenged.
>> -- would you find it "ok" that everything you write with your open
>> sourced
>> word processor be absolutely open sourced? Whatever you write? even if it
>> is
>> your next brilliant patent?
>> -- same question for the various open sourced "tools" that allow to edit
>> pictures, drawings, videos and so on.
>>
>> The fuss about is that in the present state of the license applicable to
>> open sourced livecode,
>> whatever you "write" with live code, if "given" "shared" to anybody else,
>> then becomes open sourced.
>> THe frontier between the tool itself (its modules etc) and the "day to
>> day"
>> work you can produce with it have been blurred. Fine if that is what was
>> really wanted!  But did we really all mean that???
>>
>> Actually it would be interesting to precise what rights get open sourced
>> in
>> a stack :
>> -- do all the media incorporated in a stack become open sourced when
>> shared?
>> -- what about the copyright on the layout of the application ?
>> -- what about the writing of the documentation included?
>> -- what about the logo of the company/individual  included?
>> -- what about the trade marks eventually?
>>
>> What happens if you incoportate in a stack a specific copyright
>> protection
>> for some elements.
>> There would be a kind of conflict there.
>>
>> That is why, I thought it would not be a bad idea to keep a door opened
>> for
>> some protection on some cases even for individuals indies etc. that will
>> not
>> pay 999$ every year.
>>
>> And if you think these question over copyrights and so on are just a do
>> about nothing, for most of us it is, clearly, but for Disney who managed
>> to
>> extend the copyright period by another 25 years and more in effect it is
>> vital. A largest part of our economy will now more and more rely on these
>> rights.
>>
>> Last : are there other computer programming languages that are open
>> sourced
>> and that impose on all programs written with it to be open sourced same
>> way??
>>
>> best to all,
>> Robert
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> View this message in context:
>> http://runtime-revolution.278305.n4.nabble.com/Open-source-closed-source-and-the-value-of-code-tp4701649p4701662.html
>> Sent from the Revolution - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> use-livecode mailing list
>> 

> use-livecode at .runrev

>> 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 at .runrev

> Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your
> subscription preferences:
> http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode





--
View this message in context: http://runtime-revolution.278305.n4.nabble.com/Open-source-closed-source-and-the-value-of-code-tp4701649p4701702.html
Sent from the Revolution - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.