Licensing AGAIN [was: Sharing FontLab Plugin]

Rick Harrison harrison at all-auctions.com
Thu Jul 21 09:36:07 EDT 2016


Hi Mark,

If student A wants to assign or sell student B all copyright rights for his work
for let’s say $1.00 (which is consideration in the legal sense of then word.)
then student B legally owns all copyright rights to that work.  It is treated
as though it was a work for hire even though only $1.00 changed hands.

Student B, who owns an Indy License, may then publish the work as if
he had written the entire code, because he legally owns the whole work.
Any revenue then obtained all accrues to student B.

If the LiveCode Indy license does not allow this - at least for the U.S.A. then
there is a problem with the LiveCode license.

Just my 2 cents on this.  :-)

Rick

> On Jul 21, 2016, at 4:57 AM, Mark Wilcox <mark at sorcery-ltd.co.uk> wrote:
> 
>> So If student A writes down some code on text wrangle and gives it to
>> student B who (thanks folks) have an indy license, that belongs to student B
>> and he can dispose of it as he wishes, open sourced or closed source.
> 
>> In that case it seems to me that it is just a case of confidence between the
>> group of happy co-contributers, co-thinkers.
> 
> If student A assigns his copyright in the code he has written to student
> B, and student B has an Indy license then student B can probably publish
> on the app store as long as he has written substantial portions of the
> whole app himself.
> 
> Student A might not be able to assign all of the copyright in his code
> to student B (because LiveCode claim it is a derivative work - although
> I doubt a judge/jury would agree with them, this has not been tested).
> However, any copyright LiveCode claim in the work is OK because student
> B already has a license for this anyway. So the GPL is not an issue in
> this.
> 
> The issue is the wording of the Indy license, which I was going to check
> but livecode.com seems to be down. I seem to remember there's an
> explicit clause against publishing the work of others, unless you've
> written substantial parts of it yourself.
> 
> Confidence between co-contributors has no legal basis here.
> 
> I continue to believe that despite the obvious struggles LiveCode is
> having getting enough licensing revenue, they're shooting themselves in
> the foot by trying to over-reach on claiming community users code is a
> derivative of the engine.
> 
> Mark
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 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





More information about the use-livecode mailing list