Re [OT] Snakey Problem

[Mark Waddingham]

On 2018-08-13 18:13, Mark Wieder via use-livecode wrote:
> Nope. Not wanting to get into licensing wars here (the 'silly
> licensing' thing was not meant to be a poke at LC), but the stacks I
> sell have an initial low purchase price but no 'license' involved. A
> registration code is required to download (always free) updates as
> they appear, but there's no license check and no subscription and no
> locked code.

I've no intention of starting a licensing war and I'm not, but I think I 
do have to make an important point so as to not mislead others who are 
also looking to sell the software they produce (of which there are 
probably a fair few on this list - since this is a development tool 
mailing list!).

The problem is that I have no idea what you mean by 'no license'. Do you 
mean:

   (1) No-one is allowed to use it - you've not specified any terms of 
conveyance or use - so does that mean there are none?

   (2) You mean that it is public domain (which is the closest thing to 
'no license' I believe) - you are just charging me $40 per tool as the 
download fee for the 'full' version.

   (3) You are relying on various laws and such which the purchaser is 
assumed to understand in order to know what they are allowed to do with 
what they have paid for?

If (1) is the case - then the tools very existence seems to be a kind of 
a pointless exercise.

If (2) is the case, then great - they both might make a useful addition 
to the non-GPL editions of LiveCode (as there is 'no license' they are 
not compatible with the GPL) - I'll pay $80, put them in the non-GPL 
editions and ensure everyone who uses those editions has complete and 
free access to them ;o).

If (3) is the case, then, err - that's way too non-specific for me - I 
think I'll just take a pass.

[ By the way, I should point out (although I'd hope this would be 
obvious!) that I won't *actually* be doing (2) - the lack of any 
specific details of the terms under which you are conveying your 
software means it is way to risky for me to even think about using your 
tools in any manner whatsoever! Also, I have far too much respect for 
anyone who is willing to release and support software regardless of 
whether they may or may not be somewhat light on the legalese side of 
things - so I ain't gonna go stealing anything! ]

My point here is, simply, this - software licenses might well be verbose 
at times, annoying and you may well think that they are just standing in 
our way to do what we want to do. However, they are not, they absolutely 
are not. They are very important - they tell anyone who receives the 
software work you have created what their rights, responsibilities and 
redress (as a receiver of them) is with regard the use of what you have 
granted them access to.

They don't have to be complex, nor full of legalese. However anybody who 
is vending software and failing to take the time and effort to set out 
in clear language what terms they intend their software to be used under 
either if bought, or just downloaded is doing both themselves a 
disservice, as well as their potential users.

Also, I should also point out that Python does come with a software 
license. Indeed the PSF felt it necessary to create their own 
GPL-compatible one. Interestingly there is one clause in it which 
certainly makes it stronger than MIT:

3. In the event Licensee prepares a derivative work that is based on or
    incorporates Python 3.7.0 or any part thereof, and wants to make the
    derivative work available to others as provided herein, then Licensee 
hereby
    agrees to include in any such work a brief summary of the changes 
made to Python
    3.7.0.

Indeed, parts of the python source base are actually covered by a litany 
of other licenses too (just as LiveCode's is GPL + a number of others) 
as is more than usual in large open-source projects.

So, anyway, Mark Wieder is free to continue to do as he sees fit - 
however, I'd strongly recommend anyone else thinking about selling or 
distributing software is not quite so laissez-faire with the (what can 
be extremely simple) legal side. You may not agree with software 
licensing or may think you are above, on top, aside or nowhere related 
to it; but if you wish to interact with others in the modern world of 
software, and particularly with those who are have to do due-diligence 
on such matters, you'd be wise to not ignore it and claim 'no license'.

> And as you well know, I give away lots of foss and public domain code.
> :P yourself <g>

What do you know - so do we (on a far greater scale, I'd perhaps 
venture) :oP

Warmest Regards,

Mark.

-- 
Mark Waddingham ~ mark at livecode.com ~ http://www.livecode.com/
LiveCode: Everyone can create apps