Open source, closed source, and the value of code

[Richard Gaskin]

Robert Mann wrote:

 > RE : issue : does livecode consider that all illustrative material
 > & text etc in a stack to their view fall under GPL

I had thought Mark Waddingham had addressed that.  When media is related 
to the functionality, such as an icon, that would seem reasonable to 
expect that it be included as part of the governed work.

If the media is incidental to the app, or more clearly if it's even 
physically external to the app, you should be able to remove it if you 
don't want to share that, in the same way that you can make a word 
processor and you're not obliged to include the poetry you typed with it 
while you were working on it.


 > in my case I've got a project that is related to "publishing" some
 > music practice apps.
 > So cards that contain audio elements, and copyright material like
 > songs, music scores and also pictures, videos & texts (subject to
 > copyright).

Ah, at last something specific and concrete!  Thank you.  The 
abstractions had become boggling.

Why not just do what other apps do and separate your content from your 
functionality.  Then you can share your app as a functional thing with 
content that's interchangeable.  This may also just be a useful way to 
architect, allowing you to build one system that can accommodate any 
number of titles.


 > So all coding would be available to all of course. But these
 > copyrighted elements will not be GPL compatible because as simple
 > as it is french law does not allow an author to push away his
 > copyrights.

The French have made some of the finest films in the world, and I'm able 
to know this because they were distributed here.  The creators of the 
works retain copyright even as they offer specific rights with regard to 
distribution to others.

No distribution license is a transfer of copyright.  Not in film, not in 
software.


 > 1) what seems to be important is the timing of making publicly
 > available some code :
 > -- if you "release" some code under GPL for testing out an app
 > -- and than later on turn to the closed IDE to produce a closed
 > version in view of a commercial development
 > ..if I get it right, you're done! bad choice :: GPL infringement!

A choice is license is not in itself either "good" or "bad"; we choose 
our licenses according to our goals.  When the goal is to share, the GPL 
can be a good choice.

But this is not about timing, but of distributed material:  if you 
distribute the GPL-governed engine, it's governed by the GPL.

What you do in your own home is your own business; what we're discussing 
here is distribution, and it matters less when you distribute than what 
you distribute.

-- 
  Richard Gaskin
  Fourth World Systems
  Software Design and Development for the Desktop, Mobile, and the Web
  ____________________________________________________________________
  Ambassador at FourthWorld.com                http://www.FourthWorld.com