Licensing AGAIN [was: Sharing FontLab Plugin]

[Erik Beugelaar]

Working as a hired consultant in many teams with colleague developers I have
never met one developer who did not "steal" some code from whatever resource
(internet, books etc) to use it in a project that's needs to get done. Every
developer looks around to prevent inventing the wheel again over and over.
To keep a tracklist of used handler/scripts from community license
developers during the development process is for me an insane option. More
insane to force to publish it under a GPL/3 license after if you are
developing a commercial product with a paid closed source indy option.
My grandfather who was a fighter (and surviver) in WorldWar II has told me
one lesson to remember forever: If you stay between the lines you will never
move on (that is what sheeps are doing), you have to walk on it and even
sometimes you have to cross the lines to go further and take the
consequences after and deal with it.

Just my 2 cents.

Erik


-----Original Message-----
From: use-livecode [mailto:use-livecode-bounces at lists.runrev.com] On Behalf
Of Kay C Lan
Sent: vrijdag 22 juli 2016 06:57
To: How to use LiveCode <use-livecode at lists.runrev.com>
Subject: Re: Licensing AGAIN [was: Sharing FontLab Plugin]

On Thu, Jul 21, 2016 at 5:54 AM, Peter TB Brett <peter.brett at livecode.com>
wrote:
>
> - If the app is closed-source, this definitely violates the LiveCode 
> Indy end user license agreement and probably also the LiveCode 
> Community copyright license.
>
Just to clarify, what you are saying is:

if ANY Business or Indy license holder has taken ANY handler/script
submitted to this List or the Forums, and that handler was the creation of a
Community License holder, that handler is subject to
GPLv3 so the released software CAN NOT be closed and can NOT end up on
Apples' store.

OR, to put it another way:

Business and Indy license holders should ONLY accept help, in the form of
scripts/handlers, from other Business and Indy license holders, if they
intend to create a closed app that does not raise the ire of the FSF.

OR, to put in another way:

Business and Indy license holders who include scripts/handlers created by
Community License holders, MUST release their work under GPL v3; which can
NOT be released via Apple.

It is important to understand that the Company's (LC) 'intention' can NOT
deviate from the GPL v3 legal requirements which the FSF will enforce, i.e.
just because the Company (LC) would like to interpret a paragraph one way,
and allow a certain situations/circumstances, doesn't mean the FSF (court)
will interpret it the same way.

> Apple's walled garden is not a fertile pasture for growing Free Software.
> If you want to make Free Software apps for mobile devices, target Android.

Hmm, I think this is a common misconception of the situation. Apple is more
than happy to distribute OSS. I think VLC is an important case to consider.
Apple was more than happy to distribute it and many of the code contributors
were more than happy for Apple to do that. It was a few zealots at the FSF
who pointed out it was not legally possible under GPL v2. So the OSS
contributors who wanted VLC on the App Store went ahead and, if I remember
correctly, recoded VLC under the less restrictive LGPL v 2.1, but this still
upset a few at the FSF (not
Apple) so the only way the intention of the VLC community could be fulfilled
was to abandon GPL and relicense under the OSS Mozilla Public License v 2.0.
Apple is now happily distributing it for them and where it seems to be
extremely popular and well received (this last bit based purely on my own
assessment that VLC is one of the few apps that I've checked out on the App
Store that comes with a bunch of ratings and reviews rather than the
ubiquitous "We have not received enough ratings...." blurb). It was the FSF
who stunted VLCs growth, not Apple.

As Richard has stated, it's very important to consider which OSS license is
right for you, some (MIT, BSD, MPL v2.0) offer you the freedom to do what
you want, like distribute via Apple, whilst others, notably those from the
FSF (GPL), are less permissive and the constraints are actively enforced in
court.

I think a blog post on this topic would be engaging, a License Guide that
lived in the LC Dictionary helpful, using plain English and a
infographic/matrix.

_______________________________________________
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