Licensing AGAIN [was: Sharing FontLab Plugin]

[Kay C Lan]

On Thu, Jul 21, 2016 at 5:54 AM, Peter TB Brett
<peter.brett at 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.