Is it too much to ask of any one who wants to use a file / piece of logic in separation to be bothered enough to actually try and figure out the licensing situation by checking the copying file in the root of the project?
If it's too much then perhaps the logic wasn't that valuable to them after all. On Wed, Mar 15, 2017 at 1:57 PM, Christopher Howard < [email protected]> wrote: > Hi, to me there are (at least) two categories of JavaScript here that > need to be addressed. When I look at the page source for a Web app > (specifically, picolisp-gosper), I see two things: > > (1) JavaScript which is loaded straight out of the files that come with > the release. As near as I can tell, these served files exactly match the > ones in the picolisp release. > > """ > <script type="text/javascript" > src="http://localhost:8080/@lib/canvas.js";></script> > <script type="text/javascript" > src="http://localhost:8080/@lib/plio.js";></script> > <script type="text/javascript" > src="http://localhost:8080/@lib/form.js";></script> > """ > > (2) Inline JavaScript on the page which calls functions from those > files. This JavaScript is, presumably, what is generated by the picolisp > program. > > """ > <canvas id="$testID" width="800" height="600" > onmousedown="csMouseDn(this, event)" ontouchstart="csTouchDn(this, > event)" onmousemove="csMouseMv(this, event)" > ontouchmove="csTouchMv(this, event)" onmouseup="csMouseUp(this)" > ontouchend="csTouchEnd(this)" onmouseout="csLeave(this)" > ontouchleave="csLeave(this)" class="canvas"></canvas> > <script type="text/javascript">onload=drawCanvas('$testID', 200)</script> > <br/><br/> > <input type="submit" name="*Gui:-1" value="C" > onmousedown="inBtn(this,1)" onblur="inBtn(this,0)" class="submit" > id="i2--1"/> > """ > > I believe it would be best to view (1) as library files, which are > covered under the release license (hopefully the same one as in > COPYING). On the other hand, (2) should be viewed as separate developer > code making use of said libraries. The library files should be marked > with appropriate licensing headers. The developer code which calls it > need not be under the same license, or any license, at least in this > case, as your license is not full copyleft in the sense that the GPL > licenses are. In any case, I don't think the existence of (2) eliminates > the need for proper licensing of (1). > > On 03/13/2017 10:14 PM, Alexander Burger wrote: > > On Mon, Mar 13, 2017 at 03:57:00PM -0800, Christopher Howard wrote: > >> confusion and uncertainty.) The JavaScript is a special case because > >> 90%+ of the people who will see/use the JavaScript will receive it from > >> a Web server and, if they inspect the source of the JavaScript, will > >> only see "Copyright so and so" and will have to assume that it is > >> proprietary. > > > > Especiall for the case of JavaScript I do not understand the argument. > > > > The JavaScript code in PicoLisp is deeply interacting with the server's > Lisp > > code, and makes absolutely no sense to be used (or parts of it) is > isolation. > > Should we put a licence on every line? > > > > ♪♫ Alex > > > > -- > https://qlfiles.net > -- > UNSUBSCRIBE: mailto:[email protected]?subject=Unsubscribe >
