[ANN] Sharing FontLab Plugin

Kay C Lan lan.kc.macmail at gmail.com
Tue Jul 19 02:35:01 EDT 2016


Roger Guay wrote:
>
>> Richard,
>>
>> Please help me out here. I just want to share my work ...
>
On Fri, Jul 15, 2016 at 1:45 AM, Richard Gaskin
<ambassador at fourthworld.com> wrote:
> Gosh, Roger, there's only a hundred or so open source licenses to choose
> from - are you lazy? :)
>
> The options are indeed broad...
>
> A popular choice ... GPL-compatible and works
> equally well for proprietary use is the MIT License...
>
> In short, it retains your copyright and provides disclaimer of liability,
> but presents no restrictions on use.
>
I've come late to this discussion but this would seem to be an
excellent topic for a blog post and even the basis for an official
'Guide' that can be accessed via the Guide tab of the LC8 Dictionary.
And as you both (Peter and Richard) represent either side of the fence
(The Company and The Community) who I understand are in weekly
conference call communication, who better to draft up such a document.

I can only see this sort of advise being required more and more -
hopefully a direct reflection of the growth of LC Community. It's
certainly not the first time 'What license are you distributing under'
has been asked. I see that some 'gentle advise' which steers everyone
in the correct direction will ultimately save time, confusion and
possible embarrassment.

What I suggest is the recommendation of a couple of OSS licenses; ie
MIT, Apache >= v2, LGPL >= v3, GPL >= v3, EUPL. To these we need a
description of what we can or can't do depending on what LC license
we're using (Business, Indy, Community), what environment we are in
(Standalone or IDE), what the 'item' is (Stack, plugin, handler,
library stack, script only stack) and what our intended target is;
$$$, 0$, Apple's App Store/proprietary, anyone who wants it?

What would be really nice is some sort of matrix diagram that displays
all the inter-relationships. This wikipedia page on OSS License
compatibility ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/License_compatibility )
has two nice diagrams to help explain - something similar but LC
specific is what is needed.

What the Blog/Guide/Matrix should answer:

[I DO NOT NEED THE ANSWER TO THESE SCENARIOS, they are rhetorical]

If I'm using LC Community, is there any point in attempting to release
a standalone with any other license other than Community's own GPL v3?

An LC Community user releases a Library stack under MIT. Can a LC
Business user then incorporate that stack into their app and release
it on the Apple App Store?

If and LC Indy user releases a plugin under MIT, can I distribute the
plugin with my LC Community App?

An LC Community User releases a plugin under LGPL v3 for use with the
IDE which auto includes troubleshooting code into your app code. A LC
Business user writes an app, the app itself does not include the
plugin, but there are many lines of code within the app that have been
added automatically by the plugin. Is it OK to distribute this app via
the Apple App Store.

An LC Community User creates a community stack ShareNStore for storing
and sharing handlers. The stack is released under the same GPL v3 as
LC Community and a few community members add/modify to improve the
stack itself. Many members of the community offer handlers to be
included with the stack distribution. Some of the handlers include a
remark line such as --released under MIT License Copyright (c) 2016
Pete Programmer, --released under CC BY-SA License Copyright (c) 2016
Henry Handler, but many have no License statement whatsoever. An LC
Business user copies several different handlers from the ShareNStore
stack into his own stack to be sold on the Apple App Store. Is this
OK, particularly for the handlers with no specific license stated. Is
it possible they inherit GPL v3 or as they have no License stated are
they Public Domain?

An LC Community user creates a Script Only stack and releases it to
the Public Domain.

An LC Community user has a bunch of useful database handlers which
he's created and fully tested with Community and he's saved as a text
file and licensed to CC BY-SA. On his website he provides instructions
on how to convert the text file into a usable library stack. A LC Indy
user follows the instructions and includes the library stack in an app
to be released on the Apple App Store.

These last two I raise because, like the situation of a Business
License holder offering to help a Community User get their app past
Apple, the official company line may differ to what certain community
individuals think is fair or how the license should be interpreted.
The License Guide being an ideal place for a statement that the
Company does not approve of Business/Indy License holders engaging in
this practise.

[I DO NOT NEED THE ANSWER TO THESE SCENARIOS, they are rhetorical]

In summary, I think a License Guide would be useful because LC is very
unique in it's licensing options, how it is used
(Standalone/IDE/plugin), the 'things' that it can produce and the way
the community shares; all this creates an abundance of permutations
that an honest contributor may trip over. As the Guides are now on
Github, as OSS Licenses come in and out of favour, the recommendations
can be updated, and as new 'scenarios' occur, the Company can provide
it's interpretation of what is the right and wrong way to share LC
Community created 'stuff' as it's their gift to the Community and they
intend for it be shared a certain way.

I WOULD LIKE TO AVOID A CLUBHOUSE LAWYERS DISCUSSION, if you'd like to
comment I'd hope it would be along the lines of 'License Guide a waste
or time, it's all too simple', or 'Yeah, a License Guide would be
handy and I hope it covers this or that scenario'. If the majority of
posts are 'Yeah', then hopefully the answers will come in the form of
an official License Guide.




More information about the use-livecode mailing list