subject:"Re\: revOnline and Open Source"

This thread is too long and full of misunderstandings (even from the expert 
lawyer on the technical side) to reply to every post separately.  Here's my 
take (IANAL but I did work for a open source software foundation and write the 
licensing FAQs etc):

1) Anything published without an explicit copyright license (or public domain 
disclaimer) has an implied license for you to make use of it personally but not 
to redistribute it or derivatives.  GitHub very recently woke up to this issue 
and the huge amount of legally suspect sharing they were encouraging - they 
added a license picker to their repository creation process: 
https://help.github.com/articles/open-source-licensing
As part of this they created the very helpful http://choosealicense.com/ which 
in turn includes http://choosealicense.com/no-license/ - for another carefully 
crafted take on what having no explicit license means.

2) If you choose to create and share an open source library under an open 
source license then you don't usually also need a contributors agreement.  Code 
contributed to a project with an explicit license falls under the terms of that 
license.  Contributors agreements are for the ultra-paranoid or for situations 
(like RunRev's) where you need extra rights from the contributors than those 
given by the license (e.g. RunRev also needs the right to distribute 
contributions in the commercial version as well as the GPLv3 community 
version).  If you want to have an open source library (usable with community 
edition) and accept external contributions but you also want to use it in 
commercial closed source apps then choose a permissive license (e.g. MIT).

3) Stackfiles are (almost certainly) not derivative works. The content of 
stacks is generated by LiveCode but they do not contain bits of the engine 
code.  You could think of this as similar to the paint package case - most 
image files will have a header and encode your pixel data in some special 
machine readable format - they don't put parts of the paint package code in the 
file.

4) Standalones include the engine code and most definitely are derivative works 
and thus subject to the GPL.

5) Regardless of licensing issues, you can do whatever you want with 
(non-password protected) stacks you find on revOnline or anywhere else with the 
community edition *for your own use* - its further distribution of what you do 
that is restricted by the GPL.  Indeed the GPL very carefully secures your 
right to do almost anything you like with LiveCode for your own personal 
consumption.  The concept of fair use also applies to things like learning 
and study, giving you freedom to do those whatever the original license on the 
stack - it does not usually apply to commercial use or redistribution, although 
if your use is sufficiently transformative (i.e. you make the code do something 
else) it may.  However, copyright law is frankly completely inappropriate for 
software, having evolved for books, newspapers, songs etc.  There is not a 
great deal of case law in this area to clear up the mess, I suspect because 
most software companies don't want to risk
 precedents being set and thus settle out of court.  What precedents there are 
tend to follow a general trend of you can do whatever you like if you don't 
distribute it (e.g. hacking/reverse engineering etc) but if you're making money 
out of any reproduction or derivative work you'll have to pay the copyright 
holder.  As such, it's best to avoid any commercial use of material with 
unknown licensing.

6) You can't patent ideas - only inventions.  Patents for software are an even 
worse idea than copyright, unfortunately US lobbyists somehow managed to get 
that form of protection extended.  There's a stackexchange site specifically 
for patent examiners to crowdsource prior art for dodgy patent applications: 
http://patents.stackexchange.com/
___
use-livecode mailing list
use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode

Re: revOnline and Open Source

Kevin Miller wrote:
 I think most of the people sharing on revOnline are happy for their ideas
 to be used, otherwise they wouldn't have uploaded the stacks. However I do
 agree that some legal clarification is a good idea. How about we state
 that everything on revOnline is automatically public domain, *unless* the
 author of the stack places a clear notice on the stack that declares
 copyright and an alternative license of their choice (they can use
 whatever they like but only if they say so clearly)?
 
 This is just a suggestion for feedback, not policy yet, so let me know
 what you think.


Yes, great idea.  Just 2 points:
1) CC0 - the creative commons public domain equivalent with fallbacks (you 
can't give up your rights to your work in the same ways everywhere in the 
world) is better for software than a simple public domain declaration.
2) You'd do this by making it part of the terms and conditions of use.  I'm not 
at all sure about the legality of retrospectively applying it to content that's 
already been uploaded without explicit permission, even if you broadcast a 
change to the T's  C's.  What fraction of the content is regularly updated?  
How complex would it be to get permission for the existing stuff?  That said, 
only new stuff having an automatic CC0 license would be much better than doing 
nothing.


Mark

___
use-livecode mailing list
use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode
___
use-livecode mailing list
use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode

Re: revOnline and Open Source

On Wed, Jul 31, 2013 at 8:27 PM, Richard Gaskin
ambassa...@fourthworld.com wrote:
 Dr. Hawkins wrote:

 As the author of the seminal Economic paper on the subject, I chose
 viral and public quite deliberately.

 That's certainly your right, or anyone's right, regardless of any academic
 credentials.

It's also the term used in the literature.

 Just the same, terms like viral and infect are unnecessarily
 provocative.

I don't think they're provocative so much as descriptive.

 I also wouldn't release or contribute any code to anything under GPL3
 (I have under GP2).  The patent gotchas are just to risky.

 What are your patent concerns?

There are some automatic assignments of rights and revocation of
licensuree in the GPL3.  I'm just not risking those in a license with
as much ambiguity as the GPL; I'm not even looking at the specifics
before going far, far away.
-- 
Dr. Richard E. Hawkins, Esq.
(702) 508-8462

___
use-livecode mailing list
use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode

Re: revOnline and Open Source

On Thu, Aug 1, 2013 at 3:25 AM, Mark Schonewille
m.schonewi...@economy-x-talk.com wrote:


 I would think that it is clear to users that sharing code (rather than
 stacks) in the code section of RevOnline, implies that people can use it to
 learn from. Copying and using it would violate copyright,

I think the downloader using it is implied as a permission, too--but
not his copying for someone else, paid or not.

 but studying the
 code and reverse-engineering it would be a form of fair use because one
 may reasonably presume that people are aware of the learning function of the
 code section.

Reverse engineering has it's own rules I don't even pretend to
understand.  It's typically done by two isolated teams; one makes a
definition from studying it, while the clean team writes new code
from scratch (e.g., the Phoenix bios of the 8088 days).

 Copyright doesn't protect ideas. That's what patents are for.

Nope.

There's nothing for ideas.  Patents cover implementations and methods.


-- 
Dr. Richard E. Hawkins, Esq.
(702) 508-8462

___
use-livecode mailing list
use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode

Re: revOnline and Open Source

On Thu, Aug 1, 2013 at 2:52 AM, Robert Mann r...@free.fr wrote:
 So to sum it up :

That pretty much sums it up.

 5. The protection of libraries remains to be clarified.

I don't see a real difference in this context.

 Question :: what if I open a revOline stack, find some handlers and
 mechanism I like to use elsewhere, just copy part of the script from the
 editor, modify a little to suit my precise needs and environment.

 Copyright applies to a complete work

No.  That's just not the case.

 and does and should not protect
 ideas.

Correct, but what you are talking about are derived works.  Can't do that
without violating the copyright.

 So that practice of using revOnline as a source of inspiration should not
 break copyright rules???

Inspiration, yes.  Code, no.


-- 
Dr. Richard E. Hawkins, Esq.
(702) 508-8462

___
use-livecode mailing list
use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode

Re: revOnline and Open Source

On Thu, Aug 1, 2013 at 5:56 AM, Kevin Miller ke...@runrev.com wrote:
 I think most of the people sharing on revOnline are happy for their ideas
 to be used, otherwise they wouldn't have uploaded the stacks. However I do
 agree that some legal clarification is a good idea. How about we state
 that everything on revOnline is automatically public domain, *unless* the
 author of the stack places a clear notice on the stack that declares
 copyright and an alternative license of their choice (they can use
 whatever they like but only if they say so clearly)?

You'll still need to clarify between pre-policy and post-policy uploads.  You
could also make selecting a language tag (Pub. Domain, BSD, GPL, creative
commons, other) a mandatory part of the upload process.
-- 
Dr. Richard E. Hawkins, Esq.
(702) 508-8462

___
use-livecode mailing list
use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode

Re: revOnline and Open Source

On Thu, Aug 1, 2013 at 6:35 AM, Mark Wilcox m_p_wil...@yahoo.co.uk wrote:



 3) Stackfiles are (almost certainly) not derivative works. The content of 
 stacks is
 generated by LiveCode but they do not contain bits of the engine code.

If they don't contain *any* code, I agree.  If I designed such a file
format, it would only
have descriptions of what the user did, and would be pure ascii.

I can't tell; there are certainly non-ascii characters in there, and I
just don't know what
they are.  I *assume* that they're just part of the description . . .

-- 
Dr. Richard E. Hawkins, Esq.
(702) 508-8462

___
use-livecode mailing list
use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode

Re: revOnline and Open Source


On 08/01/2013 12:52 PM, Robert Mann wrote:

So to sum it up :

1. Situation is a big mess :: all stacks published at revOnline are ab
initio protected by copyright, which is in apparent conflict with the
purpose of revOnline, which is to share code ideas and code.
2. Authors SHOULD specify the terms and license they agree upon
3. Clearly, taking a revOnline stack and distributing a commercial version
without the original author consent would be illegal.
4. Open  Source Side effect : If authors do not do not care to specify an
Open Source License, the stack cannot be simply modified and re-published
with OS Livecode, as the second user will have no clean right to do so,
except if he asks the original author for authorization or license to do so.
That should be cleared a minimum at the revOnline publishing stage otherwise
one could end up with a bunch of mixed spaghettis.

5. The protection of libraries remains to be clarified.

---
Question :: what if I open a revOline stack, find some handlers and
mechanism I like to use elsewhere, just copy part of the script from the
editor, modify a little to suit my precise needs and environment.

Copyright applies to a complete work and does and should not protect
ideas. The purpose of revOnline is to promote the communication of ideas
of implementations... so we are on a kind of frontier.

So that practice of using revOnline as a source of inspiration should not
break copyright rules???




What you are doing is showing how dicky the concept of copyright, 
unless directly stated, seems

to be . . .

. . . many years ago my father had the idea of making rubber overshoes 
for horses, and wrote
about that idea to a friend of his, who said that the idea sounded 
fairly daft . . .


. . . almost simultaneously, my father discovered that somebody had had 
the same idea, and later started marketing the things. There was 
absolutely no question that my Dad's friend had done anything sneaky with

my Dad's idea; he hadn't.

Now, I suppose my father could have wasted a lot of time, effort and 
money trying to make a case for his getting some of the profits from the 
sales of rubber overshoes for horses because he had had the idea, and 
written about it to a friend, about a year before the other chap started 
making them.


So: I really don't see how ideas can be copyrighted.

I have pupils of mine making calculator apps with Livecode as part of 
their progging classes with
me: I cannot see why (should one of those kids decide to market his/her 
app) anybody should
have to start paying royalties to the first person who developed a 
calculator app for a computer, or,
for that matter, the person who first marketed a handheld electronic 
calculator.


I show the kids I work with my (bust) Sinclair calculator [ 
http://www.vintage-technology.info/pages/calculators/s/sinccamuni.jpg ] 
(well it is good for a few laughs), explain its erstwhile functionality  
on the whiteboard,
and off they go with their progging. I am not sending five pound notes 
to Sir Clive Sinclair (even though I

admire tha man immensely).



If copyright is not explicitly stated then, surely, the thing is up for 
grabs . . .


I own a copy of The Microbiblion (published 1640), and were I to 
believe that as it has no explicit copyright
statement it was somehow protected by some implicit law I would be 
flying in the face of the people who
published it, when there were no copyright laws, and even the concept of 
copyright did not exist.


Richmond.

___
use-livecode mailing list
use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode

Re: revOnline and Open Source


On 08/01/2013 03:56 PM, Kevin Miller wrote:

I think most of the people sharing on revOnline are happy for their ideas
to be used, otherwise they wouldn't have uploaded the stacks. However I do
agree that some legal clarification is a good idea. How about we state
that everything on revOnline is automatically public domain, *unless* the
author of the stack places a clear notice on the stack that declares
copyright and an alternative license of their choice (they can use
whatever they like but only if they say so clearly)?

This is just a suggestion for feedback, not policy yet, so let me know
what you think.

Kind regards,

Kevin

Kevin Miller ~ ke...@runrev.com ~ http://www.runrev.com/
LiveCode: Everyone can code





Well, Kevin, at the risk of putting everybody's back up (surely not), 
here's what I think:


revOnline should split into two:

1. A version of revOnline where all stacks, plugins, code-snippets and 
so on are covered
by some sort of copyright notice, so that all would-be takers are 
aware that they will

have to jump through some sort of leagl hoop to do so.

2. A version of revOnline where everything is either Open Source (and 
covered by an Open

Source fair-use document) or completely FREE.

Doing this will free contributors to either of these versions of 
revOnline from having to spend ages
on sorting out licensing documents for stacks that conatin possibly as 
little as half-a-dozen lines of code.


Richmond.

___
use-livecode mailing list
use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode

Re: revOnline and Open Source

Dr. Hawkins doch...@gmail.com wrote:


 If they don't contain *any* code, I agree.  If I designed such a file
 format, it would only
 have descriptions of what the user did, and would be pure ascii.

 I can't tell; there are certainly non-ascii characters in there, and I
 just don't know what
 they are.  I *assume* that they're just part of the description . . .


Here's one of many reasons why copyright is so bad for software.  Pure ascii 
file formats are horrendously inefficient for some types of data, yet if file 
formats aren't human readable then how is anyone supposed to judge whether or 
not they contain any copyrighted material?

I think Monte said that the binary parts of the file are just the properties of 
the various objects serialised.  We could go through the source with a 
fine-toothed comb to make sure there's no common little bit of code from the 
engine sources copied into every stack but I don't believe that would create a 
derivative work in any case.  Every stack will have the common handler 
definitions too, whether generated by the IDE or typed.  Starting a story Once 
upon a time... doesn't make it a derivative work of the first such story to do 
so (OK probably a bad example as I'm sure that's out of copyright by now but 
you get the point).  It's also not in RunRev's interests to have their engine 
license infect stacks - that wouldn't work well with the commercial license.
___
use-livecode mailing list
use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode

Re: revOnline and Open Source

Richmond wrote:

 If copyright is not explicitly stated then, surely, the thing is up for grabs 
 . . .

That is very definitely not the case, although ideas can't be copyrighted only 
a particular expression of an idea.  So if you made a calculator app that 
looked and/or worked exactly like mine, or at least extremely similar then I 
may be able to sue you for copyright infringement.  It's much easier to prove 
infringement on visual copying than functional copying.
 I own a copy of The Microbiblion (published 1640), and were I to believe 
 that as it has no explicit copyright
 statement it was somehow protected by some implicit law I would be flying in 
 the face of the people who
 published it, when there were no copyright laws, and even the concept of 
 copyright did not exist.

If it was published in 1640 then the copyright has definitely expired, whether 
it existed at the time of creation or not.  I believe books currently get 70 
years after the year of the author's death and computer created works 50 years 
from the creation date (what about eBooks I wonder?).  After that time they are 
automatically public domain (in the UK) - the rules differ slightly in 
different countries but have been adjusted to be broadly the same in most of 
the developed world at least.




 From: Richmond richmondmathew...@gmail.com
To: How to use LiveCode use-livecode@lists.runrev.com 
Sent: Thursday, 1 August 2013, 16:30
Subject: Re: revOnline and Open Source
 

On 08/01/2013 12:52 PM, Robert Mann wrote:
 So to sum it up :
 
 1. Situation is a big mess :: all stacks published at revOnline are ab
 initio protected by copyright, which is in apparent conflict with the
 purpose of revOnline, which is to share code ideas and code.
 2. Authors SHOULD specify the terms and license they agree upon
 3. Clearly, taking a revOnline stack and distributing a commercial version
 without the original author consent would be illegal.
 4. Open  Source Side effect : If authors do not do not care to specify an
 Open Source License, the stack cannot be simply modified and re-published
 with OS Livecode, as the second user will have no clean right to do so,
 except if he asks the original author for authorization or license to do so.
 That should be cleared a minimum at the revOnline publishing stage otherwise
 one could end up with a bunch of mixed spaghettis.
 
 5. The protection of libraries remains to be clarified.
 
 ---
 Question :: what if I open a revOline stack, find some handlers and
 mechanism I like to use elsewhere, just copy part of the script from the
 editor, modify a little to suit my precise needs and environment.
 
 Copyright applies to a complete work and does and should not protect
 ideas. The purpose of revOnline is to promote the communication of ideas
 of implementations... so we are on a kind of frontier.
 
 So that practice of using revOnline as a source of inspiration should not
 break copyright rules???
 
 

What you are doing is showing how dicky the concept of copyright, unless 
directly stated, seems
to be . . .

. . . many years ago my father had the idea of making rubber overshoes for 
horses, and wrote
about that idea to a friend of his, who said that the idea sounded fairly daft 
. . .

. . . almost simultaneously, my father discovered that somebody had had the 
same idea, and later started marketing the things. There was absolutely no 
question that my Dad's friend had done anything sneaky with
my Dad's idea; he hadn't.

Now, I suppose my father could have wasted a lot of time, effort and money 
trying to make a case for his getting some of the profits from the sales of 
rubber overshoes for horses because he had had the idea, and written about it 
to a friend, about a year before the other chap started making them.

So: I really don't see how ideas can be copyrighted.

I have pupils of mine making calculator apps with Livecode as part of their 
progging classes with
me: I cannot see why (should one of those kids decide to market his/her app) 
anybody should
have to start paying royalties to the first person who developed a calculator 
app for a computer, or,
for that matter, the person who first marketed a handheld electronic calculator.

I show the kids I work with my (bust) Sinclair calculator [ 
http://www.vintage-technology.info/pages/calculators/s/sinccamuni.jpg ] (well 
it is good for a few laughs), explain its erstwhile functionality  on the 
whiteboard,
and off they go with their progging. I am not sending five pound notes to Sir 
Clive Sinclair (even though I
admire tha man immensely).



If copyright is not explicitly stated then, surely, the thing is up for grabs . 
. .

I own a copy of The Microbiblion (published 1640), and were I to believe that 
as it has no explicit copyright
statement it was somehow protected by some implicit law I would be flying in 
the face of the people who
published it, when

Re: revOnline and Open Source

2013-08-01 Thread Mike Kerner

This is just awful and freudian at the same time.  I did a double-take when
I read the subject this time, because for a second I thought it was
revOnline and Open Sores


On Thu, Aug 1, 2013 at 12:06 PM, Mark Wilcox m_p_wil...@yahoo.co.uk wrote:

 Richmond wrote:

  If copyright is not explicitly stated then, surely, the thing is up for
 grabs . . .

 That is very definitely not the case, although ideas can't be copyrighted
 only a particular expression of an idea.  So if you made a calculator app
 that looked and/or worked exactly like mine, or at least extremely similar
 then I may be able to sue you for copyright infringement.  It's much easier
 to prove infringement on visual copying than functional copying.
  I own a copy of The Microbiblion (published 1640), and were I to
 believe that as it has no explicit copyright
  statement it was somehow protected by some implicit law I would be
 flying in the face of the people who
  published it, when there were no copyright laws, and even the concept of
 copyright did not exist.

 If it was published in 1640 then the copyright has definitely expired,
 whether it existed at the time of creation or not.  I believe books
 currently get 70 years after the year of the author's death and computer
 created works 50 years from the creation date (what about eBooks I
 wonder?).  After that time they are automatically public domain (in the UK)
 - the rules differ slightly in different countries but have been adjusted
 to be broadly the same in most of the developed world at least.



 
  From: Richmond richmondmathew...@gmail.com
 To: How to use LiveCode use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
 Sent: Thursday, 1 August 2013, 16:30
 Subject: Re: revOnline and Open Source


 On 08/01/2013 12:52 PM, Robert Mann wrote:
  So to sum it up :
 
  1. Situation is a big mess :: all stacks published at revOnline are ab
  initio protected by copyright, which is in apparent conflict with the
  purpose of revOnline, which is to share code ideas and code.
  2. Authors SHOULD specify the terms and license they agree upon
  3. Clearly, taking a revOnline stack and distributing a commercial
 version
  without the original author consent would be illegal.
  4. Open  Source Side effect : If authors do not do not care to specify an
  Open Source License, the stack cannot be simply modified and re-published
  with OS Livecode, as the second user will have no clean right to do so,
  except if he asks the original author for authorization or license to do
 so.
  That should be cleared a minimum at the revOnline publishing stage
 otherwise
  one could end up with a bunch of mixed spaghettis.
 
  5. The protection of libraries remains to be clarified.
 
  ---
  Question :: what if I open a revOline stack, find some handlers and
  mechanism I like to use elsewhere, just copy part of the script from the
  editor, modify a little to suit my precise needs and environment.
 
  Copyright applies to a complete work and does and should not protect
  ideas. The purpose of revOnline is to promote the communication of
 ideas
  of implementations... so we are on a kind of frontier.
 
  So that practice of using revOnline as a source of inspiration should not
  break copyright rules???
 
 

 What you are doing is showing how dicky the concept of copyright, unless
 directly stated, seems
 to be . . .

 . . . many years ago my father had the idea of making rubber overshoes for
 horses, and wrote
 about that idea to a friend of his, who said that the idea sounded fairly
 daft . . .

 . . . almost simultaneously, my father discovered that somebody had had
 the same idea, and later started marketing the things. There was absolutely
 no question that my Dad's friend had done anything sneaky with
 my Dad's idea; he hadn't.

 Now, I suppose my father could have wasted a lot of time, effort and money
 trying to make a case for his getting some of the profits from the sales of
 rubber overshoes for horses because he had had the idea, and written about
 it to a friend, about a year before the other chap started making them.

 So: I really don't see how ideas can be copyrighted.

 I have pupils of mine making calculator apps with Livecode as part of
 their progging classes with
 me: I cannot see why (should one of those kids decide to market his/her
 app) anybody should
 have to start paying royalties to the first person who developed a
 calculator app for a computer, or,
 for that matter, the person who first marketed a handheld electronic
 calculator.

 I show the kids I work with my (bust) Sinclair calculator [
 http://www.vintage-technology.info/pages/calculators/s/sinccamuni.jpg ]
 (well it is good for a few laughs), explain its erstwhile functionality  on
 the whiteboard,
 and off they go with their progging. I am not sending five pound notes to
 Sir Clive Sinclair (even though I
 admire tha man immensely).

 

 If copyright

Re: revOnline and Open Source

I'm in favor of a statement making it clear what the conditions for
uploading stacks to revOnline are.  I'm not in favor of allowing those
terms to be overriden by people setting their own licensing terms on a
stack by stack basis.

The whole point of revOnline is to freely and openly share code with no
strings attached.  If that's not what you want to do, then you should find
 a location that is more appropriate to your objectives.



Pete
lcSQL Software http://www.lcsql.com


On Thu, Aug 1, 2013 at 6:10 AM, Richard Gaskin
ambassa...@fourthworld.comwrote:

 Kevin Miller wrote:

 I think most of the people sharing on revOnline are happy for their ideas
 to be used, otherwise they wouldn't have uploaded the stacks. However I do
 agree that some legal clarification is a good idea. How about we state
 that everything on revOnline is automatically public domain, *unless* the
 author of the stack places a clear notice on the stack that declares
 copyright and an alternative license of their choice (they can use
 whatever they like but only if they say so clearly)?

 This is just a suggestion for feedback, not policy yet, so let me know
 what you think.


 I like it, provided folks understand what public domain means (include a
 simple definition?).

 Your proposed solution seems the best of all worlds:  simplicity for those
 who don't care about defining licenses, while allowing those who do to
 choose a license appropriate for their goals.

 Gets my vote.

 --
  Richard Gaskin
  Fourth World
  LiveCode training and consulting: http://www.fourthworld.com
  Webzine for LiveCode developers: http://www.LiveCodeJournal.com
  Follow me on Twitter:  
 http://twitter.com/**FourthWorldSyshttp://twitter.com/FourthWorldSys


 __**_
 use-livecode mailing list
 use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
 Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your
 subscription preferences:
 http://lists.runrev.com/**mailman/listinfo/use-livecodehttp://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode

___
use-livecode mailing list
use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode

Re: revOnline and Open Source

2013-08-01 Thread Robert Mann

I totally agree with you :: things should be simple. Simple for us, simple
for th experimented commercial developer helping us out, simple for Kevin,
simple for the 12 yrs old newcomer, simple and clear for everybody :=
revOnline =equals= freely shared no strings attached. Full point.  

I believe though that in legal terms, a kind of license like 3commons..
something  has to express this clearly.

I've always found strange to see demos of commercial product being
uploaded. 

Let's keep things simple :: the length of that thread clearly shows that
these license matters are not simple and.. quite complex when seen in a
systémic view, asking what are the consequences of that license after a
while.. once it has viraled into many other apps.. !! 

THere seems to be a good ab-initio cure to these silly virals :: free!
no-strings. CC Hugh! 



--
View this message in context: 
http://runtime-revolution.278305.n4.nabble.com/revOnline-and-Open-Source-tp4668100p4668232.html
Sent from the Revolution - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

___
use-livecode mailing list
use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode

Re: revOnline and Open Source


On 08/01/2013 07:34 PM, Mike Kerner wrote:

This is just awful and freudian at the same time.  I did a double-take when
I read the subject this time, because for a second I thought it was
revOnline and Open Sores





LOL! The whole thing does look a bit like an Open Sore.

Richmond.

___
use-livecode mailing list
use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode

Re: revOnline and Open Source

2013-08-01 Thread Mike Kerner

it's not the site, it was just the title of the thread and the strong
reaction it seems to evoke.  I don't use revOnline, so I can't comment on
it.


On Thu, Aug 1, 2013 at 2:22 PM, Richmond richmondmathew...@gmail.comwrote:

 On 08/01/2013 07:34 PM, Mike Kerner wrote:

 This is just awful and freudian at the same time.  I did a double-take
 when
 I read the subject this time, because for a second I thought it was
 revOnline and Open Sores




 LOL! The whole thing does look a bit like an Open Sore.


 Richmond.

 __**_
 use-livecode mailing list
 use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
 Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your
 subscription preferences:
 http://lists.runrev.com/**mailman/listinfo/use-livecodehttp://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode




-- 
On the first day, God created the heavens and the Earth
On the second day, God created the oceans.
On the third day, God put the animals on hold for a few hours,
   and did a little diving.
And God said, This is good.
___
use-livecode mailing list
use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode

Re: revOnline and Open Source

On 08/01/2013 09:25 PM, Mike Kerner wrote:

it's not the site, it was just the title of the thread and the strong
reaction it seems to evoke. I don't use revOnline, so I can't comment on
it.

Well, I started the thread, and the reaction was both amazing, and, I
believe, healthy; surely the more people
are involved in this sort of discussion the more chance there is of
having some sort of consensus.

If RunRev are presenting themselves as 'open', at least as far as their
Open Source half is concerned, then
this sort of discussion is necessary; and the thing that is really good
is that Kevin Miller has become involved.

Certainly, at the risk of sounding mind-bogglingly naive, I had always
assumed that stuff available on revOnline
was there for the taking; and when I uploaded stuff to the older version
(now obviated) of revOnline
I didn't bother about any licensing documents on the understanding that
anybody who wanted could just help themselves to my code and get on with it.

I have also been rather careful about the bits of code that are mission
critical to my commercial product.

Obviously things are not nearly so simple as I fondly imagined.

What precipitated my starting this thread was my spotting, on revOnline,
a color picker stack that

DOES contain an explicit copyright statement.

Richmond.

On Thu, Aug 1, 2013 at 2:22 PM, Richmond richmondmathew...@gmail.comwrote:

On 08/01/2013 07:34 PM, Mike Kerner wrote:

This is just awful and freudian at the same time. I did a double-take
when
I read the subject this time, because for a second I thought it was
revOnline and Open Sores

LOL! The whole thing does look a bit like an Open Sore.

Richmond.

__**_
use-livecode mailing list
use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your
subscription preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/**mailman/listinfo/use-livecodehttp://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode

Re: revOnline and Open Source

On 01/08/2013, at 11:45 PM, Mark Wilcox m_p_wil...@yahoo.co.uk wrote:

 1) CC0 - the creative commons public domain equivalent with fallbacks (you 
 can't give up your rights to your work in the same ways everywhere in the 
 world) is better for software than a simple public domain declaration.

Yes, unlike other CC licenses CC0 is recommended for software.

 2) You'd do this by making it part of the terms and conditions of use.  I'm 
 not at all sure about the legality of retrospectively applying it to content 
 that's already been uploaded without explicit permission, even if you 
 broadcast a change to the T's  C's.  What fraction of the content is 
 regularly updated?  How complex would it be to get permission for the 
 existing stuff?  That said, only new stuff having an automatic CC0 license 
 would be much better than doing nothing.

What I'd like to see is a license picker as part of the upload process with the 
option to enter your own. The chosen license is then displayed where you might 
download the stack. All current stacks just get listed as unspecified license 
until owners update them.

This whole topic has made me wonder if revOnline handles password protected 
stacks in community nicely... it should probably state that the stack is 
password protected and only available so download in commercial.

Cheers

--
Monte Goulding

M E R Goulding - software development services
mergExt - There's an external for that!





___
use-livecode mailing list
use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode

Re: revOnline and Open Source


On 02/08/2013, at 2:58 AM, Peter Haworth p...@lcsql.com wrote:

 The whole point of revOnline is to freely and openly share code with no
 strings attached.  If that's not what you want to do, then you should find
 a location that is more appropriate to your objectives.

Hmm... Mark Wieder said he puts demos of his commercial plugins on there I 
guess that rules that out. Actually it rules lots of stuff out.

--
Monte Goulding

M E R Goulding - software development services
mergExt - There's an external for that!





___
use-livecode mailing list
use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode

Re: revOnline and Open Source

2013-08-01 Thread Heather Laine

Call me naive but.. if you don't want to share your code, why on earth would
you upload it to revOnline? Its kinda like painting a picture, hanging it on
the wall, and then telling folks, hey, thats my picture, don't look at it!

I've nothing against people protecting their code if they want to. It's theirs.
But if they upload it, openly, to a shared site… what do they expect people to
do with it?

I'm open to being educated. Maybe there is some reason someone would do this. I
just … don't get it. Certainly, that was the original rationale behind
providing the revOnline site. To allow users to share their code and their
expertise with others, if they chose to do so. This community has always been
amazingly sharing and helpful to each other.

This is my personal opinion. I am not a lawyer. It does not represent any
official position at RunRev.

Regards,

Heather

On 1 Aug 2013, at 19:33, Richmond wrote:

On 08/01/2013 09:25 PM, Mike Kerner wrote:
it's not the site, it was just the title of the thread and the strong
reaction it seems to evoke. I don't use revOnline, so I can't comment on
it.

If RunRev are presenting themselves as 'open', at least as far as their Open
Source half is concerned, then
this sort of discussion is necessary; and the thing that is really good is
that Kevin Miller has become involved.

Certainly, at the risk of sounding mind-bogglingly naive, I had always
assumed that stuff available on revOnline
was there for the taking; and when I uploaded stuff to the older version (now
obviated) of revOnline
I didn't bother about any licensing documents on the understanding that
anybody who wanted could just help themselves to my code and get on with it.

I have also been rather careful about the bits of code that are mission
critical to my commercial product.

Obviously things are not nearly so simple as I fondly imagined.

What precipitated my starting this thread was my spotting, on revOnline, a
color picker stack that
DOES contain an explicit copyright statement.

Richmond.

On Thu, Aug 1, 2013 at 2:22 PM, Richmond richmondmathew...@gmail.comwrote:

On 08/01/2013 07:34 PM, Mike Kerner wrote:

This is just awful and freudian at the same time. I did a double-take
when
I read the subject this time, because for a second I thought it was
revOnline and Open Sores

LOL! The whole thing does look a bit like an Open Sore.

Richmond.

Heather Laine
Customer Services Manager
http://www.livecode.com/

Re: revOnline and Open Source


On 02/08/2013, at 6:40 AM, Heather Laine heat...@runrev.com wrote:

 I've nothing against people protecting their code if they want to. It's 
 theirs. But if they upload it, openly, to a shared site… what do they expect 
 people to do with it?

You do realise that all of RunRev's IP is openly uploaded to a shared site? 
What do you expect people to do with it? ;-)

--
Monte Goulding

M E R Goulding - software development services
mergExt - There's an external for that!





___
use-livecode mailing list
use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode

Re: revOnline and Open Source


On 02/08/2013, at 12:25 AM, Dr. Hawkins doch...@gmail.com wrote:

 If they don't contain *any* code, I agree.  If I designed such a file
 format, it would only
 have descriptions of what the user did, and would be pure ascii.
 
 I can't tell; there are certainly non-ascii characters in there, and I
 just don't know what
 they are.  I *assume* that they're just part of the description . . .

You are free to review the code that saves livecode files.

--
Monte Goulding

M E R Goulding - software development services
mergExt - There's an external for that!





___
use-livecode mailing list
use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode

Re: revOnline and Open Source

2013-08-01 Thread Richard Gaskin


Heather Laine wrote:

 Call me naive but.. if you don't want to share your code, why on
 earth would you upload it to revOnline?

There may be many reasons:

- The stack may be a tutorial, and while the code techniques it 
describes may be shareable there may be libraries or other code driving 
the presentation may have been derived from a proprietary work.


- The stack may be a demo of a proprietary work.

- It may contain content which has restrictions on use.

And with those for which the author did intend to share, what exactly do 
we mean by that?  GPL?  Apache?  MIT?  Public domain?  Something else?


Each type of sharing comes with its own rights and responsibilities.

I like Kevin's suggestion of having a default of CC0 unless the author 
specifies their license, as it leaves everyone's options as open as 
anyone might want them.


--
 Richard Gaskin
 Fourth World
 LiveCode training and consulting: http://www.fourthworld.com
 Webzine for LiveCode developers: http://www.LiveCodeJournal.com
 Follow me on Twitter:  http://twitter.com/FourthWorldSys


___
use-livecode mailing list
use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode

Re: revOnline and Open Source

On 08/01/2013 11:40 PM, Heather Laine wrote:

I've nothing against people protecting their code if they want to. It's theirs.
But if they upload it, openly, to a shared site… what do they expect people to
do with it?

This is my personal opinion. I am not a lawyer. It does not represent any
official position at RunRev.

Regards,

Heather

Well said, Heather!

On 1 Aug 2013, at 19:33, Richmond wrote:

On 08/01/2013 09:25 PM, Mike Kerner wrote:

it's not the site, it was just the title of the thread and the strong
reaction it seems to evoke. I don't use revOnline, so I can't comment on
it.

Well, I started the thread, and the reaction was both amazing, and, I believe,
healthy; surely the more people
are involved in this sort of discussion the more chance there is of having some
sort of consensus.

If RunRev are presenting themselves as 'open', at least as far as their Open
Source half is concerned, then
this sort of discussion is necessary; and the thing that is really good is that
Kevin Miller has become involved.

Certainly, at the risk of sounding mind-bogglingly naive, I had always assumed
that stuff available on revOnline
was there for the taking; and when I uploaded stuff to the older version (now
obviated) of revOnline
I didn't bother about any licensing documents on the understanding that anybody
who wanted could just help themselves to my code and get on with it.

I have also been rather careful about the bits of code that are mission
critical to my commercial product.

Obviously things are not nearly so simple as I fondly imagined.

What precipitated my starting this thread was my spotting, on revOnline, a
color picker stack that
DOES contain an explicit copyright statement.

Richmond.

On Thu, Aug 1, 2013 at 2:22 PM, Richmond richmondmathew...@gmail.comwrote:

On 08/01/2013 07:34 PM, Mike Kerner wrote:

This is just awful and freudian at the same time. I did a double-take
when
I read the subject this time, because for a second I thought it was
revOnline and Open Sores

LOL! The whole thing does look a bit like an Open Sore.

Richmond.

Heather Laine
Customer Services Manager
http://www.livecode.com/

Re: revOnline and Open Source

On Thu, Aug 1, 2013 at 1:40 PM, Heather Laine heat...@runrev.com wrote:

 Call me naive but.. if you don't want to share your code, why on earth
 would you upload it to revOnline? Its kinda like painting a picture,
 hanging it on the wall, and then telling folks, hey, thats my picture,
 don't look at it!


Thank you Heather!  This whole discussion just emphasizes what a minefield
licensing is and I for one would rather see revOnline used for things that
have no licensing conditions so it's simple and straighforward.  I don't
know for sure but I'm pretty certain that was the original intent of
revOnline.

Pete
lcSQL Software http://www.lcsql.com
___
use-livecode mailing list
use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode

Re: revOnline and Open Source

2013-08-01 Thread Jacques Hausser

Why is it so complicate nowadays to remain simple ?

Jacques

___
use-livecode mailing list
use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode

Re: revOnline and Open Source

Read Simplexity by Jeoffrey Kluger

Pete
lcSQL Software http://www.lcsql.com


On Thu, Aug 1, 2013 at 3:30 PM, Jacques Hausser jacques.haus...@unil.chwrote:

 Why is it so complicate nowadays to remain simple ?

 Jacques

 ___
 use-livecode mailing list
 use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
 Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your
 subscription preferences:
 http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode

___
use-livecode mailing list
use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode

Re: revOnline and Open Source

...or Wrong by David Freedman.  Slightly different focus - it's about why
experts are very frequently wrong.

Pete
lcSQL Software http://www.lcsql.com


On Thu, Aug 1, 2013 at 3:30 PM, Jacques Hausser jacques.haus...@unil.chwrote:

 Why is it so complicate nowadays to remain simple ?

 Jacques

 ___
 use-livecode mailing list
 use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
 Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your
 subscription preferences:
 http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode

___
use-livecode mailing list
use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode

Re: revOnline and Open Source

2013-08-01 Thread Marian Petrides MD

Heather,
I'm a late comer to this discussion so I might have missed a crucial piece.

However, I can conceive of situation in which I might freely share something
I've written, e. g. a lecture, but include a copyright notice to forestall
someone else using my work verbatim (or nearly so) and passing it off as their
own. In fact, I've always included a copyright notice in any handout I've
passed out at any lecture I've given. I'd be delighted if people would share my
work--as written and with proper attribution. OTOH, I would be seriously
annoyed to find large chunks of my work in someone else's textbook.

It seems to me that this is analogous to the situation you and earlier posters
have described. Does this make sense?

Marian

Sent from my iPhone

On Aug 1, 2013, at 4:40 PM, Heather Laine heat...@runrev.com wrote:

I've nothing against people protecting their code if they want to. It's
theirs. But if they upload it, openly, to a shared site… what do they expect
people to do with it?

I'm open to being educated. Maybe there is some reason someone would do this.
I just … don't get it. Certainly, that was the original rationale behind
providing the revOnline site. To allow users to share their code and their
expertise with others, if they chose to do so. This community has always been
amazingly sharing and helpful to each other.

This is my personal opinion. I am not a lawyer. It does not represent any
official position at RunRev.

Regards,

Heather

On 1 Aug 2013, at 19:33, Richmond wrote:

On 08/01/2013 09:25 PM, Mike Kerner wrote:
it's not the site, it was just the title of the thread and the strong
reaction it seems to evoke. I don't use revOnline, so I can't comment on
it.

If RunRev are presenting themselves as 'open', at least as far as their Open
Source half is concerned, then
this sort of discussion is necessary; and the thing that is really good is
that Kevin Miller has become involved.

I have also been rather careful about the bits of code that are mission
critical to my commercial product.

Obviously things are not nearly so simple as I fondly imagined.

What precipitated my starting this thread was my spotting, on revOnline, a
color picker stack that
DOES contain an explicit copyright statement.

Richmond.

On Thu, Aug 1, 2013 at 2:22 PM, Richmond richmondmathew...@gmail.comwrote:

On 08/01/2013 07:34 PM, Mike Kerner wrote:

This is just awful and freudian at the same time. I did a double-take
when
I read the subject this time, because for a second I thought it was
revOnline and Open Sores
LOL! The whole thing does look a bit like an Open Sore.

Richmond.

Heather Laine
Customer Services Manager
http://www.livecode.com/

Re: revOnline and Open Source

2013-07-31 Thread Robert Mann

Oups! i'm surprised. I thought the opposite would be true :: if nothing
specified, it's deemed public knowledge?

As far as patents are concerned, once a mechanism is documented on line, it
is deemed to be public knowledge and thus no more patentable (one could do
it but anybody knowing the prior publication and proving it would be able to
challenge the patent).

Now it is true that copyrights protect the actual wording you use in a
document, and is applicable to softwares. And copyright applies whether or
not you actually put the copyright logo name and year.

On the frontier :: if the name of the author is not specified in the stack,
then it'll be hard to argue against common knowledge.

Clearly it would simplify to be able to add at the publication step a
corresponding OSS declaration. 

I strangely assumed so far that contributions at revOnline were for the
common good, thus freely re-usable common knowledge. Are there any other
folks around who though so?



--
View this message in context: 
http://runtime-revolution.278305.n4.nabble.com/revOnline-and-Open-Source-tp4668100p4668171.html
Sent from the Revolution - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

___
use-livecode mailing list
use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode

Re: revOnline and Open Source

2013-07-31 Thread Mark Schonewille


Hi Robert,

Anonymous works are still copyrighted by the anonymous author. If the 
author ever decides to reveal him/herself, he can claim this copyright.


Contributions to RevOnline are not anonymous. If need be, they can be 
traced back to an account and a user. This makes it easier to claim 
copyright.


I don't think that public knowledge voids any patents. If you have a new 
idea and can prove that the idea is yours, you can claim the patent.


I wouldn't want to force people to decide on anything when they release 
their software. If they don't include an open source license, then let 
them just have the copyright. That's also a type of freedom people 
(authors) are entitled to.


(I'm no expert on legal issues).

--
Best regards,

Mark Schonewille

Economy-x-Talk Consulting and Software Engineering
Homepage: http://economy-x-talk.com
Twitter: http://twitter.com/xtalkprogrammer
KvK: 50277553

Use Color Converter to convert CMYK, RGB, RAL, XYZ, H.Lab and other 
colour spaces. http://www.color-converter.com


Buy my new book Programming LiveCode for the Real Beginner 
http://qery.us/3fi


Fill out this survey please
http://livecodebeginner.economy-x-talk.com/survey/

On 7/31/2013 15:49, Robert Mann wrote:

Oups! i'm surprised. I thought the opposite would be true :: if nothing
specified, it's deemed public knowledge?

As far as patents are concerned, once a mechanism is documented on line, it
is deemed to be public knowledge and thus no more patentable (one could do
it but anybody knowing the prior publication and proving it would be able to
challenge the patent).

Now it is true that copyrights protect the actual wording you use in a
document, and is applicable to softwares. And copyright applies whether or
not you actually put the copyright logo name and year.

On the frontier :: if the name of the author is not specified in the stack,
then it'll be hard to argue against common knowledge.

Clearly it would simplify to be able to add at the publication step a
corresponding OSS declaration.

I strangely assumed so far that contributions at revOnline were for the
common good, thus freely re-usable common knowledge. Are there any other
folks around who though so?




___
use-livecode mailing list
use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode

Re: revOnline and Open Source

On Wed, Jul 31, 2013 at 6:49 AM, Robert Mann r...@free.fr wrote:
 On the frontier :: if the name of the author is not specified in the stack,
 then it'll be hard to argue against common knowledge.

That just isn't the law.

Not in the US, and AFAIK, not any country subscribing to the Berne convention.

*HOWEVER*, the GPL3 of the community version *DOES* infect executables
created with the community version (it's license requires that the
derivative work have the same license).



-- 
Dr. Richard E. Hawkins, Esq.
(702) 508-8462

___
use-livecode mailing list
use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode

Re: revOnline and Open Source

2013-07-31 Thread Richmond


On 31/07/13 16:49, Robert Mann wrote:

Oups! i'm surprised. I thought the opposite would be true :: if nothing
specified, it's deemed public knowledge?

As far as patents are concerned, once a mechanism is documented on line, it
is deemed to be public knowledge and thus no more patentable (one could do
it but anybody knowing the prior publication and proving it would be able to
challenge the patent).

Now it is true that copyrights protect the actual wording you use in a
document, and is applicable to softwares. And copyright applies whether or
not you actually put the copyright logo name and year.

On the frontier :: if the name of the author is not specified in the stack,
then it'll be hard to argue against common knowledge.

Clearly it would simplify to be able to add at the publication step a
corresponding OSS declaration.

I strangely assumed so far that contributions at revOnline were for the
common good, thus freely re-usable common knowledge. Are there any other
folks around who though so?


yes; Me!

Richmond.



--
View this message in context: 
http://runtime-revolution.278305.n4.nabble.com/revOnline-and-Open-Source-tp4668100p4668171.html
Sent from the Revolution - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

___
use-livecode mailing list
use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode



___
use-livecode mailing list
use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode

Re: revOnline and Open Source

2013-07-31 Thread Mark Schonewille

Hi,

Yes, the license of the community version does infect executables built with 
it, but not automatically. The author still has to include the license with the 
software and if s/he doesn't do that, copright applies automatically and the 
author would be violating LiveCode's open source license.

--
Best regards,

Mark Schonewille

Economy-x-Talk Consulting and Software Engineering
Homepage: http://economy-x-talk.com
Twitter: http://twitter.com/xtalkprogrammer
KvK: 50277553

Use Color Converter to convert CMYK, RGB, RAL, XYZ, H.Lab and other colour 
spaces. http://www.color-converter.com

We have time for new software development projects. Contact me for a quote.






On 31 jul 2013, at 16:10, Dr. Hawkins wrote:
 
 That just isn't the law.
 
 Not in the US, and AFAIK, not any country subscribing to the Berne convention.
 
 *HOWEVER*, the GPL3 of the community version *DOES* infect executables
 created with the community version (it's license requires that the
 derivative work have the same license).
 
 


___
use-livecode mailing list
use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode

Re: revOnline and Open Source


Dr. Hawkins wrote:


On Wed, Jul 31, 2013 at 6:49 AM, Robert Mann rman at free.fr wrote:

On the frontier :: if the name of the author is not specified in the stack,
then it'll be hard to argue against common knowledge.


That just isn't the law.

Not in the US, and AFAIK, not any country subscribing to the Berne convention.

*HOWEVER*, the GPL3 of the community version *DOES* infect executables
created with the community version (it's license requires that the
derivative work have the same license).


FWIW, the inventor of the GPL prefers inherit rather than infect, 
since the GPL is a choice authors can make and infect has negative 
connotations that make that choice sound like an accident.


But this discussion raises a peripheral question:

How does the GPL3 used by the Community Edition affect libraries?

GPL3 distinguishes dynamic linking as not affected, while static 
linking explicitly inherits GPL freedoms.


The AGPL goes one step further to apply to the sort of dynamic linking 
in connections made by clients to servers, but in the LC world that 
usually only affects LiveCode Server and Kevin has already noted that he 
chose not to use AGPL for Server specifically to avoid encumbrance by 
clients.


For desktop LiveCode, can one build a library and license it under the 
GPL3-compatible LGPL for use in proprietary standalones as long as it 
remains a separate stack file?


Conversely, can one build a proprietary library and use it with the 
Community Edition (not password-protected, of course)?


There seems to be much variance over how to define dynamically linked 
and derivative work.


For example, the Wordpress and Drupal project owners have both 
explicitly stated that they believe plugins and even themes constitute 
derivative works and therefore inherit GPL rights and responsibilities.


Yet even within those communities there are some who sell proprietary 
add-ons, to the best of my knowledge without legal intervention.


Where exactly is the line drawn with LC libraries when distributed as 
separate stack files?


--
 Richard Gaskin
 Fourth World
 LiveCode training and consulting: http://www.fourthworld.com
 Webzine for LiveCode developers: http://www.LiveCodeJournal.com
 Follow me on Twitter:  http://twitter.com/FourthWorldSys

___
use-livecode mailing list
use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode

Re: revOnline and Open Source

2013-07-31 Thread Thomas McGrath III

Copyright Law aside, Isn't revOnline a place to openly 'share' code with other 
users. In fact what other purpose does revOnline perform? Doesn't the idea of 
sharing code openly in a public space enough to declare it as public? Or is 
that presuming too much?

Tom

-- Tom McGrath III
http://lazyriver.on-rev.com
mcgra...@mac.com



___
use-livecode mailing list
use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode

Re: revOnline and Open Source


Thomas McGrath III wrote:

 Copyright Law aside, Isn't revOnline a place to openly 'share' code
 with other users. In fact what other purpose does revOnline perform?
 Doesn't the idea of sharing code openly in a public space enough to
 declare it as public? Or is that presuming too much?

Sharing code is sharing code, but it helps to define the terms under 
which it's shared.  Otherwise we have no way to know if the intention 
was GPL, CC, MIT, public domain, or something else.


--
 Richard Gaskin
 Fourth World
 LiveCode training and consulting: http://www.fourthworld.com
 Webzine for LiveCode developers: http://www.LiveCodeJournal.com
 Follow me on Twitter:  http://twitter.com/FourthWorldSys


___
use-livecode mailing list
use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode

Re: revOnline and Open Source

2013-07-31 Thread Mark Wieder

Richard-

Wednesday, July 31, 2013, 12:44:18 PM, you wrote:

 Sharing code is sharing code, but it helps to define the terms under
 which it's shared.  Otherwise we have no way to know if the intention
 was GPL, CC, MIT, public domain, or something else.

(Sticking my non-lawyer nose into this) if something isn't explicitly
GPL then it's not GPL, right?

And just to be clear about this: anything I have ever put on revOnline
or the web forum is freely available for anyone to do whatever they
want with, the only exceptions being the password-protected demos.

-- 
-Mark Wieder
 mwie...@ahsoftware.net


___
use-livecode mailing list
use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode

Re: revOnline and Open Source


Mark Wieder wrote:


Richard-

Wednesday, July 31, 2013, 12:44:18 PM, you wrote:


Sharing code is sharing code, but it helps to define the terms under
which it's shared.  Otherwise we have no way to know if the intention
was GPL, CC, MIT, public domain, or something else.


(Sticking my non-lawyer nose into this) if something isn't explicitly
GPL then it's not GPL, right?


Yes, that's true of any terms:  if you don't declare them, no one can 
know what they are.


--
 Richard Gaskin
 Fourth World
 LiveCode training and consulting: http://www.fourthworld.com
 Webzine for LiveCode developers: http://www.LiveCodeJournal.com
 Follow me on Twitter:  http://twitter.com/FourthWorldSys

___
use-livecode mailing list
use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode

Re: revOnline and Open Source

2013-07-31 Thread Peter Haworth

On Wed, Jul 31, 2013 at 12:44 PM, Richard Gaskin ambassa...@fourthworld.com
 wrote:

 Sharing code is sharing code, but it helps to define the terms under which
 it's shared.  Otherwise we have no way to know if the intention was GPL,
 CC, MIT, public domain, or something else.


Have to admit I've always thought of revOnline stuff as freely available to
anyone who wants to use with no strings attached and certainly no GPL
requirements.

However, seems like it would be a good idea for RunRev to publish the terms
under which revOnline submissions are accepted so we don't all have to
include our own tcs.

Pete
lcSQL Software http://www.lcsql.com
___
use-livecode mailing list
use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode

Re: revOnline and Open Source


Peter Haworth wrote:


However, seems like it would be a good idea for RunRev to publish the terms
under which revOnline submissions are accepted so we don't all have to
include our own tcs.


Personally, I very strongly prefer to be free to choose my own license 
for my work.  There are specific implications for GPL, MIT, public 
domain, etc., and I like each for different projects.


I fear it would greatly limit the range of goodies there if we were 
required to limit our uploads to those serving one license's goals.


--
 Richard Gaskin
 Fourth World
 LiveCode training and consulting: http://www.fourthworld.com
 Webzine for LiveCode developers: http://www.LiveCodeJournal.com
 Follow me on Twitter:  http://twitter.com/FourthWorldSys

___
use-livecode mailing list
use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode

Re: revOnline and Open Source

2013-07-31 Thread Peter Haworth

On Wed, Jul 31, 2013 at 1:34 PM, Richard Gaskin
ambassa...@fourthworld.comwrote:

 Personally, I very strongly prefer to be free to choose my own license for
 my work.  There are specific implications for GPL, MIT, public domain,
 etc., and I like each for different projects.

 I fear it would greatly limit the range of goodies there if we were
 required to limit our uploads to those serving one license's goals.


I guess I'd always assumed revOnline was for public domain, freely
available, no strings attached code but sounds like that's not the case.

Pete
lcSQL Software http://www.lcsql.com
___
use-livecode mailing list
use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode

Re: revOnline and Open Source


On 01/08/2013, at 6:34 AM, Richard Gaskin ambassa...@fourthworld.com wrote:

 Personally, I very strongly prefer to be free to choose my own license for my 
 work.  There are specific implications for GPL, MIT, public domain, etc., and 
 I like each for different projects.

I've asked many times for the lists and forums to be declared CC0... nothing's 
happened yet. RevOnline should also be CC0 unless the author specifically 
identifies a license and the license terms should be visible in the interface 
before downloading the stack.

Cheers

--
Monte Goulding

M E R Goulding - software development services
mergExt - There's an external for that!





___
use-livecode mailing list
use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode

Re: revOnline and Open Source


On 01/08/2013, at 12:31 AM, Richard Gaskin ambassa...@fourthworld.com wrote:

 GPL3 distinguishes dynamic linking as not affected, while static linking 
 explicitly inherits GPL freedoms.

I thought it was LGPL that made that distinction.

Cheers

--
Monte Goulding

M E R Goulding - software development services
mergExt - There's an external for that!





___
use-livecode mailing list
use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode

Re: revOnline and Open Source

On Wed, Jul 31, 2013 at 7:27 AM, Mark Schonewille
m.schonewi...@economy-x-talk.com wrote:
 Yes, the license of the community version does infect executables built with 
 it,
but not automatically. The author still has to include the license with the 
software
and if s/he doesn't do that, copright applies automatically and the author
would be violating LiveCode's open source license.

Correct.  I wrote part of that explanation, but deleted it as more
than most would want.

Specifically, the author of the piece would breach the license of
LiveCode Community by
distributing an executable without so licensing it and providing the source.

Nonetheless, the executable could not be freely distributed by the
user as the license to
do so wouldn't exist.




-- 
Dr. Richard E. Hawkins, Esq.
(702) 508-8462

___
use-livecode mailing list
use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode

Re: revOnline and Open Source

On Wed, Jul 31, 2013 at 7:31 AM, Richard Gaskin
ambassa...@fourthworld.com wrote:
 Dr. Hawkins wrote:

 FWIW, the inventor of the GPL prefers inherit rather than infect, since
 the GPL is a choice authors can make and infect has negative connotations
 that make that choice sound like an accident.

An inheritance an also be disclaimed . . .

As the author of the seminal Economic paper on the subject, I chose
viral and public
quite deliberately.


 But this discussion raises a peripheral question:

 How does the GPL3 used by the Community Edition affect libraries?

Compiled standalone stacks, or uncompiled?

A standalone (or any executable) has code of the virally licensed
compiler, and thus is bound by that license.

As a lawyer, I don't *think* that the source would be necessarily
bound if distributed as such.  If you distributed just scripts that
were tested in livecode, I don't think they would.  If, OTOH, you
distributed a .livecode file, I think you're probably back to a
derivative work.  I wouldn't bet my car for or against either of
these, though.let alone my house (wait a minute; I like my car better
than my house!).

I also wouldn't release or contribute any code to anything under GPL3
(I have under GP2).  The patent gotchas are just to risky.  If I come
up with any brilliant ideas for livecode, I'll either ship them off
under MIT or public domain, and let someone else slap that license
onto it.

I know what the FSF says about licensing.  I've also read the GPL in a
couple of versions, and I'm not sure what the actual legal
consequences are--I'm just sure they're *not* all what the FSF would
like them to be and claims they are.

I also don't use 6.x, and won't until it's stable enough; business
need to depend upon what I'm writing.


-- 
Dr. Richard E. Hawkins, Esq.
(702) 508-8462

___
use-livecode mailing list
use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode

Re: revOnline and Open Source

On Wed, Jul 31, 2013 at 12:15 PM, Thomas McGrath III mcgra...@mac.com wrote:
 Copyright Law aside, Isn't revOnline a place to openly 'share' code with 
 other users.
In fact what other purpose does revOnline perform? Doesn't the idea of sharing 
code
openly in a public space enough to declare it as public? Or is that presuming 
too much?

It's presuming too much.


-- 
Dr. Richard E. Hawkins, Esq.
(702) 508-8462

___
use-livecode mailing list
use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode

Re: revOnline and Open Source

On 01/08/2013, at 11:31 AM, Dr. Hawkins doch...@gmail.com wrote:

 If, OTOH, you
 distributed a .livecode file, I think you're probably back to a
 derivative work.

Why? Are all images edited with GIMP derivative works? Are all MySQL databases 
derivative works? What about text files written with GPL software?

Cheers

Monte
___
use-livecode mailing list
use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode

Re: revOnline and Open Source

On Wed, Jul 31, 2013 at 12:51 PM, Mark Wieder mwie...@ahsoftware.net wrote:
 (Sticking my non-lawyer nose into this) if something isn't explicitly
 GPL then it's not GPL, right?

correct.

If you don't license or transfer it, it's still completely copyrignted
 protected.

However, the act of putting it on there should create an implicit
permission to *use* it (but not to modify  distribute, nor even to
reidstribute)



-- 
Dr. Richard E. Hawkins, Esq.
(702) 508-8462

___
use-livecode mailing list
use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode

Re: revOnline and Open Source

On Wed, Jul 31, 2013 at 7:01 PM, Monte Goulding
mo...@sweattechnologies.com wrote:
 On 01/08/2013, at 11:31 AM, Dr. Hawkins doch...@gmail.com wrote:

 If, OTOH, you
 distributed a .livecode file, I think you're probably back to a
 derivative work.

 Why? Are all images edited with GIMP derivative works? Are all MySQL 
 databases derivative
works? What about text files written with GPL software?

Generally, for those examples, no.

If I send a livecode script, it was made with an editor, but no parts
of the editor are there.

In a .livecode file,though, there are pieces written by the program
instead of me:  looking at mine, after a bunch of scipts, I see
add_table follwed by gobbledygook, crevGeneral, gobbledygook, and so
forth.  Some numeric sequences making no sense, and so forth.

It's including pieces of the program that created it, unlike a pure
script, and is a derived work.

A GIMP image, though, is just an image; a collection of dots  grids.
An eps editor, on the other hand, would probably create derivative
works, including bits of its own code.  Similarly for mysql, you write
code, which is from an editor, which doesn't include the mysql
program.

And to bring it all together, gcc is *not* gpl, but one of the many
QGPL (quasi-gpl) licenses (so is linux).  There is an explicit
exception to the gcc license disclaiming copyright.  Similarly, Linux
 co. explicitly disclaim to allow non-GPL kernel modules.

It roughly comes down to whether or not pieces of the virally licensed
software end up as pieces of the new work.


-- 
Dr. Richard E. Hawkins, Esq.
(702) 508-8462

___
use-livecode mailing list
use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode

Re: revOnline and Open Source


Dr. Hawkins wrote:


On Wed, Jul 31, 2013 at 7:31 AM, Richard Gaskin wrote:

Dr. Hawkins wrote:



FWIW, the inventor of the GPL prefers inherit rather than infect, since
the GPL is a choice authors can make and infect has negative connotations
that make that choice sound like an accident.


An inheritance an also be disclaimed . . .

As the author of the seminal Economic paper on the subject, I chose
viral and public quite deliberately.


That's certainly your right, or anyone's right, regardless of any 
academic credentials.


Just the same, terms like viral and infect are unnecessarily 
provocative.




I also wouldn't release or contribute any code to anything under GPL3
(I have under GP2).  The patent gotchas are just to risky.


What are your patent concerns?

--
 Richard Gaskin
 Fourth World Systems
 Software Design and Development for Desktop, Mobile, and Web
 
 ambassa...@fourthworld.comhttp://www.FourthWorld.com

___
use-livecode mailing list
use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode

Re: revOnline and Open Source

If you look at the code that writes the LiveCode file to disk you will see that 
it's just saving object properties. It's a binary file format which is why some 
of it will look like gobbledygook.

Cheers

--
M E R Goulding
Software development services

mergExt - There's an external for that!

On 01/08/2013, at 1:10 PM, Dr. Hawkins doch...@gmail.com wrote:

 In a .livecode file,though, there are pieces written by the program
 instead of me:  looking at mine, after a bunch of scipts, I see
 add_table follwed by gobbledygook, crevGeneral, gobbledygook, and so
 forth.  Some numeric sequences making no sense, and so forth.

___
use-livecode mailing list
use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode

Re: revOnline and Open Source


Monte Goulding wrote:

On 01/08/2013, at 12:31 AM, Richard Gaskin ambassador at fourthworld.com 
wrote:


GPL3 distinguishes dynamic linking as not affected, while static linking 
explicitly inherits GPL freedoms.


I thought it was LGPL that made that distinction.


On further review, I believe you're right.  I got hung up on the phrase 
dynamically linked, having glossed over the rest of this clause from 
Section 1 of GPL3:


   The “Corresponding Source” for a work in object code form means
   all the source code needed to generate, install, and (for an
   executable work) run the object code and to modify the work,
   including scripts to control those activities. However, it does
   not include the work's System Libraries, or general-purpose tools
   or generally available free programs which are used unmodified in
   performing those activities but which are not part of the work.
   For example, Corresponding Source includes interface definition
   files associated with source files for the work, and the source
   code for shared libraries and dynamically linked subprograms
   that the work is specifically designed to require, such as by
   intimate data communication or control flow between those
   subprograms and other parts of the work.

That last sentence seems less about whether it's statically or 
dynamically linked, and more appropriately (it seems to me) about the 
degree to which such files are essential to the core functionality of 
the work.


Thanks for prompting my re-read (so much falls out of one's head after a 
few days in Hawaii g).


--
 Richard Gaskin
 Fourth World Systems
 Software Design and Development for Desktop, Mobile, and Web
 
 ambassa...@fourthworld.comhttp://www.FourthWorld.com

___
use-livecode mailing list
use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode

Re: revOnline and Open Source