Conversation
Notices
-
so, any advice/opinion anyone on which #open #license would be appropriate for userscripts? CC / LGPL / BSD / MIT ? why?
about 6 months ago from web-
if it's javascript, public domain. but that's just me.
Marjolein Katsma likes this. -
@speeddefrost that would have some negative practical implications: no support, no requests for modifications, no userscripts.org
-
@marjoleink i'll take public domain any time
-
no it wouldn't. public domain is always a win.
-
@speeddefrost if I don't "own" it I could not pledge I will support my software. that is not a 'win' for something subject to change...
-
@speeddefrost I'm in favor of public domain only for 'products' in their final state (not subject to change) and requiring no support
-
@laurelrusswurm what about support? I can't state I'll support what isn't mine.
-
@marjoleink I don't understand why you couldn't support software without ownership. +What happens to sw users when you no longer support it?
-
why not?
-
@laurelrusswurm for artistic works, it woudl be different, but I'm talking about software here, that *will* require support...
-
@laurelrusswurm ... I emphatically do not want to say "here it is, you're on your own now" which is what public domain would mean
-
Sorry, I don't agree with @rms on that one either. Nothing at all prevents you from supporting public domain sw besides your own decision.
Crosbie Fitch likes this. -
No. the public domain is where everything that is not in the private domain goes.
Rob Myers and Crosbie Fitch like this. -
@marjoleink Only reason !publicdomain now considered abandoned ghetto is b/c !copyright law extends terms decades past authors death. #new
Rob Myers and Christopher Allan Webber like this. -
@laurelrusswurm I generally don't agree with RMS, period :)
-
@laurelrusswurm is it? and how is that relevant to my original question?
-
@marjoleink my point is that if your software is in the public domain, it is only unsupported if *you choose* to not support it.
-
@marjoleink you agree exactly with @rms on this point; he too believes that creative work and sw should be treated differently
-
If you want a bit of copyleft take the MPL, else take the BSD or MIT. LGPL is damn too complicated.
-
CC is not recommended for software http://identi.ca/url/61015131
-
And finally BTW I have a blog post about software licenses :) http://identi.ca/url/39556085
-
@phunehehe what I want is permissive, and simple. already rejected CC (not for software) and LGPL (indeed, too complicated)...
-
@phunehehe ...BSD has a puzzling 'all rights reserved' which is then invalidated. looking at MIT and ISC now - will look at MPL, thanks!
-
@laurelrusswurm it puzzles me to see a lot of CC licenses on userscripts.org, even though !CC explicitly discourages this
Rob Myers likes this. -
@laurelrusswurm not the only reason; another is that many countries (including NL) do not have a legal framework supporting it
-
@laurelrusswurm I'd love to make a testament placing all my photos into the public domain when I die - but I cannot do this!
-
@marjoleink May I ask why not? Should it be copyleft instead?
-
@phunehehe oh, MPL is way too complicated, too, and geared towards compiled code and large collaborations, not single-author user scripts
-
@marjoleink Have you checked the WTFPL? That might be more what you want.
-
@johnnynull: CC have a copyleft licence, but it isn't intended or recommended for software - http://ur1.ca/658fs
-
@robmyers Gotcha. Thanks very much!
-
@marjoleink Given your requirements, the choice is down to a 3-clause MIT-style license, and the WTFPL. Or CC-Zero (PD-like)
-
@lnxwalt280 @csolisr ha! I had not heard of WTFPL but that may be a bridge too far ;) I like that it's approved as GPL-compatible though!
-
@lnxwalt280 @csolisr currently the choice is between MIT and very similar but slightly simpler CSI; tending towards MIT now
-
@robmyers Not my area, but it is sounding very proprietary to me.
-
You should talk about this more. Tell your government. Blog, talk to other NL creators. Get them to change the law to allow for it.
-
Perhaps I overlooked. Which part of the MPL did you find complicated? Maybe you should just go with MIT :)
-
@jxself Thanks, bookmarked. But the rough yardstick applies: most of my scripts are *considerably* shorter than the (L)GPL.
-
@phunehehe 1) one thing in common with (L)GPL is reference to 'source code' - but a script IS the source; 2) far too long
-
@phunehehe for a simple script (as opposed to a whole application) I want short and simple enough to embed it in the script
-
@phunehehe so that results in BSD (confusing), SCI or MIT. I've just decided to go with MIT. It fits in a neat block and uses clear language
-
The MIT is cool. Actually it doesn't matter. Long live openness!
-
@laurelrusswurm it depends. software can become public domain ©-wise, but still have sources (trade) secrets -> can't support it
-
@laurelrusswurm BTW, I don't think @rms is against public domain software, as long as it is Free Software, even if lacking copyleft
-
@lxoliva I have no doubt that @rms thinks all software should be free; what i disagree with is not extending freedom to the rest of culture
Rob Myers likes this. -
@lxoliva I disagree. Free or not free.
-
lgpl or mit/bsd... no real reason for that... just feel better then gpl fot userscripts...
Marjolein Katsma likes this. -
@gegoxaren I agree in concept they may not be all that different, ultimately - but audience matters, too: ...
-
@gegoxaren ...but BSD/MIT/ICS are much easier to understand for non-developers and easy to embed in a little script.
-
@laurelrusswurm I'm with you, culture ought to be free as well. but what are the essential freedoms for each kind of cultural work?
-
@laurelrusswurm I don't understand your disagreement here. public-domain software without sources is not Free
-
what he's saying here is that you need the freedom to modify, etc. for it to be free. most software will not have release source in pd
-
so basically, software is unlike any other work, in that it can still be useless to those who want to work w/ it even in the public domain
-
@tekk arguably CG video and audio suffer from the same problem of the released work being a derivative of the original work.
-
it's kind of a problem, but less of one. you can still use the rendered video, just not modify the models themselves(in video)
-
@tekk it's still a case where certain manipulations of the content are practically impossible. I don't see a clear line between the two.
-
the difference is the scope of those certain manips. you can edit cgi movie as much as a traditional, software you practically can't manip
-
@tekk but you can't manipulate the CGI scene as a CGI scene, only as a series of images.
-
thinking about this more, I suppose it IS quite close. in both cases you're stuck manipulating output of a program on a 'source', thanks :D
-
@tekk what? I changed someone's mind on the internet? Everything I thought I knew about the world is WRONG! <runs away screaming>
-
identica is not the rest of the internet, minds are changed all the time here ;)
Pedro Gras likes this. -
@tekk but seriously, I actually hadn't thought about it much until I ran across your conversation, so I was enlightened as well.
-
which is why this is the exact kind of conversation that has to happen a lot more often
-
For the record, CC0 *is* acceptable for software & GPL compatible; we worked hard w/ FSF on this; I release my own small scripts under CC0
-
Also, no reason public domain/CC0 enthusiasts and copyleft/GPL/BY-SA enthusiasts can't get along. I'm both!
Mike Linksvayer and Marjolein Katsma like this. -
@cwebber right. same here. horses for courses and all that. :)
-
@cwebber: hater ;-)
-
@cwebber (-: so what? I can hardly get along with myself at times ;-P :-D
-
All Identi.ca content and data are available under the