Refactoring and so on.

[FourthWorld]

Ah. Okay. Thank you for clarifying.
So, if I were to generate an entirely new stack, and it's therefore all my own code, can I specify that the code within cannot be used in anything other than an OpenXTalk distribution?

That touches on one of the few remaining areas of case law not yet settled with GPL: What is the definition of "derivative work"?

There are a wide range of opinions on what constitutes "derivative work". At the more inclusive end of the spectrum is is WordPress interpetation:

Part of this license outlines requirements for derivative works, such as plugins or themes. Derivatives of WordPress code inherit the GPL license. Drupal, which has the same GPL license as WordPress, has an excellent page on licensing as it applies to themes and modules (their word for plugins).

There is some legal grey area regarding what is considered a derivative work, but we feel strongly that plugins and themes are derivative work and thus inherit the GPL license. If you disagree, you might want to consider a non-GPL platform such as Serendipity (BSD license) instead.

https://wordpress.org/about/license/

When in doubt about how to interpret anything in a software license (and if you think open source licensing require some thinking, wait till you adopt the habit of actually reading every proprietary license for the software and services we use <g>), it's usually best to check with the copyright holder of the work.

I don't have the link handy, but back in the early days of LC's move into open source Mark Waddingham expressed a view very consistent with WordPress', that anything containing executable code, even scripts, inherited the rights and responsibilities of the GPL it was released under.

GPL is about sharing. If you're into sharing, choose software licensed under it. If you want to take software but not share software, choose software under a different license.

The reason I'm wondering this is if Rebecca (of the openxion source) permits us to use it as an engine (something we can develop in the background parallel to OXT lite), then I'd like to ensure we protect that going forwards.

If her engine is released under GPL or a GPL-compatible license, I see no problem offhand (tho as you know, I'm not a lawyer). GPL is explicitly non-discriminatory, allowing use and modification "for any purpose whatsoever", provided all modifications are distributed under the same license.

The MUCH bigger issue would seem to be technical: the LC file format is not trivial, and would require extensive work to make a reader for it inside of another system.

I suspect it would be far cheaper to fix the LC macOS issues.

[FourthWorld]

Have you any evidence LC are pinching any of your stuff?

Not yet they aren't, and they currently have no reason to. However, if we were to do a lot of work in a new engine, the last thing I'd want is anyone to take that away and sell it on as a commercial product in future.

Please keep in mind that the GPL expresses no opinion on cost. The "free" in the Free Software Foundation is about freedom, not price. The freedoms include the right to have access to the source, to use it any way one wants, to modify any way one wants, and to distribute the modifications any way one wants. There is no prohibition on selling open source.

That can include selling the derivative work, though as a practical matter few bother, since others also have the right to their source and can just make a variant released with no cost, reducing the potential market size to exactly one: the first open source fan who might feel the need to make a point.

[richmond62]

In a perfect world . . .

but bits seem to be tacked on from version 8 onwards

A competent programmer would attempt to 'externalise' as much code in the engine as is possible, reducing the engine to something fairly minimal, exactly so all and everyone could 'tack on' as much or as little to that minimal engine as they saw fit.

This also allowing the engine to be used for quite some time without a constant cycle of modding and rebuilds.

[tperry2x]

When in doubt ... it's usually best to check with the copyright holder of the work.

So, essentially if in doubt, err on the side of caution and assume no.

Thanks for clearing that up. It does make sense. These agreements are so wordy, I wonder if that's partly to put people off most of the time.

What most people (and by most people, I might just mean me), is a set of bullet points:

What you can do:
blah

What you can't do...
and so on...

[FourthWorld]

When in doubt ... it's usually best to check with the copyright holder of the work.

So, essentially if in doubt, err on the side of caution and assume no.

Thanks for clearing that up. It does make sense. These agreements are so wordy, I wonder if that's partly to put people off most of the time.

What most people (and by most people, I might just mean me), is a set of bullet points:

What you can do:
blah

What you can't do...
and so on...

I think LC had something like that back in the day, and of course there's the GPL FAQ:
https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html

But if this seems onerous, at least open source licenses tend to be standardized, with most projects using just a few (GPL, MIT, Apache, and a couple others). Once the strengths of each is grokked you can look at nearly any FOSS code base and have a good sense of how to use it.

Proprietary licenses are the mess, overlooked only because most don't read them. Each one is unique, so every paragraph of every licence for every proprietary work needs to be gone over with a fine tooth comb. And sometimes they change between versions, so even if you've had your legal team review a license you might have to do that again with each upgrade.

Buried in the 6-point Nanosquint of some proprietary licenses are terms that let the vendor collect and sell your personal information, and make it a crime to view the executable in a hex editor.

Really, read licenses.

For the first few years of Facebook's React framework it even had a clause the effectively granted Facebook the right to use any of your company's patents without having to negotiate a licence. Many companies were more than a little upset to find their devs had built out their app on a system that devalued key company assets. Eventually the outrage prompted Facebook to remove those considerations, and today React is a very valuable system. But we got here only after someone eventually read the license.

[richmond62]

Buried in the 6-point Nanosquint of some proprietary licenses are terms that let the vendor collect and sell your personal information, and make it a crime to view the executable in a hex editor.

-

contract.jpg (116.29 KiB) Viewed 1070 times

-
About 15 years my lawyer, here in Bulgaria, read an open source licence for the first time and saw that it was NOT just 'a licence to do whatever you liked', which surprised her a lot.

[tperry2x]

Essentially, I'd like to make a short version:

With this software, you are allowed to do the following:

• Make copies of it and give it to other people, as long as this information you are reading now goes along with it

• Feel free to improve upon the code

• Use the software to produce Stacks (which other people also have the right to modify)

What you can't do with this software:

• You cannot lock the source code and claim it as your own

• You cannot sell this software, or put it behind a license subscription (paywall)

For the TLDR version, please see the official documentation below.

(and then show the full, unabridged copyright notices).
Does that sound possible?

[FourthWorld]

Including the GPLv3 text is a requirement. If you also want to add an FAQ that's up to you. Personally I like reading the straight dope.

[tperry2x]

Including the GPLv3 text is a requirement.

Sorry to be a pain, but is that only if the CEF engine is included?

I like reading the straight dope.

Each to their own. I personally find the word 'bullsh t' creeping into my subconscious after reading about 5 lines.

[FourthWorld]

Including the GPLv3 text is a requirement.

Sorry to be a pain, but is that only if the CEF engine is included?

LC is distributed under the GPLv3. Every software should have its license included. GPL requires it be included. If not, how could anyone know how they can use it?

[tperry2x]

That's kind of where I am with this now, and many others I suspect. Even with the GPL licence included, it's still an absolute mystery as I don't speak legalese.

[OpenXTalkPaul]

Education is not going to give a flying fudge about what the underlying engine is; they are going to give an FF about what the GUI looks like.

I would say that, living in a world unfortunately driven by money, education is probably best serving children by teaching them a coding language that they have the best chance of someday getting a paying job with, and unfortunately that hasn't meant xTalk since maybe ever. That probably means JavaScript (which filled the role that xTalk should have filled, IMO).

Some main goals for me here are to keep the idea of open-source xTalk alive... and to make an OXT IDE that is as useful for creating software as I can make it, 'hyper-media' oriented software in particular. I want it to be creativity and fun oriented with some wow factor. If it's fun and instantly gratifying it will draw kids in the same way it did for me pretty much the moment I first saw what it was (some time around 1987). I mean I think xTalk is probably still the best language to teach basic coding concepts (at least for English speaking people), but without any bells or whistles I think kids will find it pretty boring. Like wow, you can easily make yet another spread sheet sort of app? Big whoop...now how do I make a maze game with it? That's more of what the kids care about. For me, if there hadn't been some excellent add-ons available (HyperCard was an early or maybe even first example of an extensible application), XCMD/XFCN like Ear-Level Training's HyperMIDI, I'm sure I would have lost interest in HyperTalk.