LiveCode Community - anyone up for maintaining the community edition?
ahsoftware at sonic.net
Wed Sep 22 14:29:27 EDT 2021
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.
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.
ahsoftware at gmail.com
More information about the use-livecode