Licensing AGAIN [was: Sharing FontLab Plugin]

[Mark Wilcox]

So the important clause is this one:

b) The ability to create and distribute Created Software is intended for
You to use with applications You have created or been substantially
involved in developing. You are prohibited from using the Licensed
Edition to build standalone applications for others where You are not
the author of the application, or confer on others the ability to build
standalone applications by any means whatsoever. For the avoidance of
doubt, You may not use the Licensed Edition to create or distribute
Created Software for other users who are using the Community Edition of
LiveCode. This clause is intended to prevent You from providing any
facility or service which would reduce or eliminate the requirement for
other LiveCode users, including users of the Community Edition, to
purchase a Licensed Edition to distribute their own Created Software.

My interpretation (not professional legal advice) is that if you have a
commercial license and you decide to build an open source app released
under the GPL, such that community edition users can use the code if
they want, then you could take patches from community edition users and
as long as they assign copyright you can still release the app on the
App Store.  The reverse situation, where a community edition user has a
GPL app and you as a commercial license holder submit a patch, then
offer to take a non-GPL copyright license (or ownership of the
copyright) and publish on the App Store is clearly not allowed. Anything
in between seems like a grey area and would need clarifying with HQ.

I'm not interested in finding GPL loopholes but rather the health of the
LiveCode ecosystem and removing FUD from open source licensing in
general. My concern around LiveCode over-reaching with their derivative
work claims (which are significantly stronger than those made by
WordPress and Drupal) is that what constitutes a derivative work under
copyright law is not in any way altered by the license applied. So, if
the original code in an app written by a community edition user is
judged not to be a derivative work, then there is nothing that can be
altered in the license to fix that "loophole" in LiveCode's intended
licensing scheme. Having the investment of a lifetime license, I'm not
keen to see LiveCode basing part of their business model on a very
dubious interpretation of copyright law, which also restricts the useful
sharing of code between community edition users and commercial license
holders.

I'd really hope to see a more enlightened policy here. It's much like
the question of trying to prevent app piracy. There's no point. The
people who would pirate were never going to pay anyway. Give people good
reasons to do the right thing and pay, rather than try to scare them
into doing so with GPL-related FUD.

-- 
  Mark Wilcox
  mark at sorcery-ltd.co.uk