LiveCode Community - anyone up for maintaining the community edition?

[Mark Wieder]

On 9/9/21 7:18 AM, Mark Waddingham via use-livecode wrote:

 > We (LiveCode Ltd.) cannot take any code changes you make to your 
project's version of the LiveCode source-code and use them in our 
commercial code as (by default) it will be GPLv3 licensed, and the 
copyright of that will be held by the person who authored the changes; 
just as you cannot change the license from GPLv3 nor copyright 
attribution (LiveCode Ltd.) - whether explicit or implicit - of any 
existing line of code in your project's fork of the LiveCode 
repositories, nor take any changes which appear from now onwards in any 
commercial edition to incorporate into your project.
 >
 > When we were running the open source project, we had in place a 
Contributor's License Agreement which meant that the copyright of any 
code authored by a contributor in any patch submitted to LiveCode Ltd 
was assigned to us. However, this only extended to contributions 
submitted through GitHub, where there was an appropriate immutable 
record of such submissions and it was universally clear what changes 
were being made. For obvious reasons, this no longer exists.
 >

Mark-

I've been mulling this over for a while now and I'm still unclear on the 
import of what you're saying here. (Disclaimer: this is probably tricky 
legal and ethical ground and I'm certainly no expert on licensing terms)

Are you saying that submissions to bugzilla and pull requests to github 
that haven't yet been accepted into the main code are now orphaned? If 
someone (asking for a friend) takes a pull request that has not yet been 
acted on and *also* submits it to an open source fork, what does that do 
to its licensing status? Can an open source project cherrypick pull 
requests from the archived code and implement them? Is LiveCode Ltd not 
able to do that because of the licensing change?

My head is spinning.

-- 
  Mark Wieder
  ahsoftware at gmail.com