Creative Common Copyright Notice in Standalones

[David Bovill]

Hi Jan _ I don't quite get the exact nature of the private public
distinction you are making - si the source code visible, or are you
referring to a license distinction. From a casual reading it looks a bit
like there is a contradiction in there somewhere - but that most of what you
want can be got with dual licensing.

On 10 January 2011 20:46, Jan Schenkel <janschenkel at yahoo.com> wrote:

> --- On Sat, 1/8/11, David Bovill <david at vaudevillecourt.tv> wrote:
> > [snip]
> >
> > Thanks for taking the time to respond - my interest is in
> > real business
> > models built around licenses, or other legal innovations -
> > and not the
> > politics :)**
> >
>
> Well, now that the topic has come up, I have a few questions regarding open
> source licenses which the community may provide better insight into.
>
> Let's assume I want to make available a new Quartam Smurf Library for
> LiveCode, as open source. Ignore the Intellectual Property rights of Peyo
> for a second, it's just the first thing I could think of - I'll leave it up
> to the psychologists on this list to examine my insanity from that :-)
>
> Anyway, Quartam Smurf Library offers a set of commands and functions to do
> with Smurfs. Let's say it covers the original 100 Smurfs. I want to give the
> rest of the community the opportunity to add support for the newer Smurfs
> that were added afterwards. The library has a number of 'core' commands and
> functions that are scripted as 'private' and are used by all 'public'
> commands and functions for the initial 100 Smurfs.
>
> My main goals:
> - to make sure that I get proper attribution for my work
> - to make sure that anyone who uses the library shares their modifications
> with the rest of the community
> - to run an open community around the library to incorporate the welcome
> changes into new versions of the library
> - to also accommodate those LiveCode-using developers whose corporate
> policy prevents them from using anything GPL/LGPL/AGPL, by offering it in a
> commercial license as well
>
> My main concerns:
> - it needs to cover Desktop, Mobile, Server and Web plug-in deployments
> - it shouldn't be a viral license that requires the whole program to be
> open source under the same license, just the modifications and extensions of
> the library
> - it should prevent commercial 'wrapping' of the library (*)
>
> (*) what I mean by wrapping: some devious individual could decide to make a
> derivative version of Quartam Smurf Library, exposing just those core
> 'private' commands and functions by making them 'public' - thus enabling
> them to write a 'wrapper' library which is closed source and commercial, not
> sharing their extensions but making a profit of the work of the
> contributors.
>
> In short, I'm willing to share my initial work, but others should also
> share their modifications and extensions with the community.
>
> So far I haven't found the right license for this.
> - MIT is too liberal for this, I think
> - GPL is viral so out of the question
> - LGPL is close but its goal conflicts with Server and Web plug-in
> - AGPL has also turned out to be viral, after re-reading it a few times
> - MPL might be a candidate, but I'm not sure if it covers all the concerns
>
> Can you guys and gals help me out?
>
> Thanks in advance for the feedback!
>
> Jan Schenkel.
> =====
> Quartam Reports & PDF Library for LiveCode
> www.quartam.com
>
> =====
> "As we grow older, we grow both wiser and more foolish at the same time."
> (La Rochefoucauld)
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> use-livecode mailing list
> use-livecode at lists.runrev.com
> Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your
> subscription preferences:
> http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode
>