Licensing AGAIN [was: Sharing FontLab Plugin]

[Mark Wilcox]

> So If student A writes down some code on text wrangle and gives it to
> student B who (thanks folks) have an indy license, that belongs to student B
> and he can dispose of it as he wishes, open sourced or closed source.

> In that case it seems to me that it is just a case of confidence between the
> group of happy co-contributers, co-thinkers.

If student A assigns his copyright in the code he has written to student
B, and student B has an Indy license then student B can probably publish
on the app store as long as he has written substantial portions of the
whole app himself.

Student A might not be able to assign all of the copyright in his code
to student B (because LiveCode claim it is a derivative work - although
I doubt a judge/jury would agree with them, this has not been tested).
However, any copyright LiveCode claim in the work is OK because student
B already has a license for this anyway. So the GPL is not an issue in
this.

The issue is the wording of the Indy license, which I was going to check
but livecode.com seems to be down. I seem to remember there's an
explicit clause against publishing the work of others, unless you've
written substantial parts of it yourself.

Confidence between co-contributors has no legal basis here.

I continue to believe that despite the obvious struggles LiveCode is
having getting enough licensing revenue, they're shooting themselves in
the foot by trying to over-reach on claiming community users code is a
derivative of the engine.

Mark