Licensing discussion.

If someone released a program that violates a license(eg. modifying & releasing a program that said you couldn't distribute), I'm sure Lyqyd would probably take it down.
You can't really stop them outside the CC forums though.

Geforce Fan, on 08 April 2015 - 11:15 PM said:

If someone released a program that violates a license(eg. modifying & releasing a program that said you couldn't distribute), I'm sure Lyqyd would probably take it down.
You can't really stop them outside the CC forums though.

This is true, you can easily post it somewhere else, so I guess trying to license code is slightly useless… We need a ComputerCraft License…

DannySMc, on 09 April 2015 - 09:05 AM said:

We need a ComputerCraft License…

I have mixed feelings about that.

Will I would agree that people on the forums need to be more aware of licensing, I think a default license would be better (compared to the method turtlescripts uses, which is all code is under the same license if it's on their site).

My definition of a default license is: if you don't state otherwise, your code is licensed under the ComputerCraft license.

Lupus590, on 09 April 2015 - 04:05 PM said:

DannySMc, on 09 April 2015 - 09:05 AM said:

We need a ComputerCraft License…

I have mixed feelings about that.

Will I would agree that people on the forums need to be more aware of licensing, I think a default license would be better (compared to the method turtlescripts uses, which is all code is under the same license if it's on their site).

My definition of a default license is: if you don't state otherwise, your code is licensed under the ComputerCraft license.

This I agree on completely! Of course I think it should include no modifying then sharing as your own.

quotes so Danny sees

DannySMc, on 09 April 2015 - 04:09 PM said:

Lupus590, on 09 April 2015 - 04:05 PM said:

DannySMc, on 09 April 2015 - 09:05 AM said:

We need a ComputerCraft License…

I have mixed feelings about that.

Will I would agree that people on the forums need to be more aware of licensing, I think a default license would be better (compared to the method turtlescripts uses, which is all code is under the same license if it's on their site).

My definition of a default license is: if you don't state otherwise, your code is licensed under the ComputerCraft license.

This I agree on completely! Of course I think it should include no modifying then sharing as your own.

Sound like it should be based of the MIT license.

Here is my 'mock-up'

Lupus590, on 09 April 2015 - 04:36 PM said:

quotes so Danny sees

DannySMc, on 09 April 2015 - 04:09 PM said:

Lupus590, on 09 April 2015 - 04:05 PM said:

DannySMc, on 09 April 2015 - 09:05 AM said:

We need a ComputerCraft License…

I have mixed feelings about that.

Will I would agree that people on the forums need to be more aware of licensing, I think a default license would be better (compared to the method turtlescripts uses, which is all code is under the same license if it's on their site).

My definition of a default license is: if you don't state otherwise, your code is licensed under the ComputerCraft license.

This I agree on completely! Of course I think it should include no modifying then sharing as your own.

Sound like it should be based of the MIT license.

Here is my 'mock-up'

Awesome idea, wouldn't call it ComputerCraft default license, something a little more creative

We should move to a new thread for this default license discussion. (I've made a report request)

I've split this into a new topic.

We won't be enforcing any sort of default or forced licensing rules.

Lyqyd, on 09 April 2015 - 05:50 PM said:

I've split this into a new topic.

Thanks.

Lyqyd, on 09 April 2015 - 05:50 PM said:

We won't be enforcing any sort of default or forced licensing rules.

Well this thread had a short life.
I can see why some may be against this, people who don't understand licensing may feel that a default licence is the one they have to use because they don't know how to state that they are using another one.

Maybe a (written) rule of respect would be better, while like a default license in some ways, it won't be legally binding to either party. Something like, if you use someone else's code, respect any of their wishes regarding said code and credit them for it where you use it.

I think this is a good idea to be able to keep peoples work protected at least on the forums.

I don't think we have to ENFORCE IT, just a license for ComputerCrafters to have their work protected, a default license.

Maybe not a default license (as Lyqyd said the the moderators are opposed to the idea)

Maybe instead a CC license which people can use for convince, this license would allow people to do what they already do, but have it written down.
That way, program posters just need to say, "this program uses the CC license" and most people will know what that means.

Or maybe we should have a "how to license your work" thread.

No I think maybe a downloadable code to show it is a CC License.

downloadable code?

I don't think I understand properly.

I will explain when I am home, gotta drive home now though.

Well, regarding copyright issues, it's not only CC that is affected by that. Anyone can take any open source project, maybe decompile a closed source project and redistribute it somewhere on the internet and no one could stop it. The only thing that someone could do is contact the website's, at which the copy was placed, administrators and ask them to remove the copyrighted work, by linking to the original program.

Anyway, I think CC programs shouldn't have a default license. I don't see a point in that. If someone wants to protect their work they can just choose an existing license. There is a thread here discussing what licenses should fit a CC program here.

I agree, (MIT-based is quite good), as many programs that I might want to edit have no license.
by default US law, that means they are copyrighted, unless you ask the owner

no license given stuff in protected in the UK too.

While not everyone may agree with a MIT based license, personally I agree with you that something like the MIT license is what most people will likely want.

Lupus590, on 10 April 2015 - 10:45 PM said:

no license given stuff in protected in the UK too.

While not everyone may agree with a MIT based license, personally I agree with you that something like the MIT license is what most people will likely want.

btw I'm in the UK :D/> but I just happen to know a bit about US copyright.

MKlegoman357, on 10 April 2015 - 07:05 PM said:

Well, regarding copyright issues, it's not only CC that is affected by that. Anyone can take any open source project, maybe decompile a closed source project and redistribute it somewhere on the internet and no one could stop it. The only thing that someone could do is contact the website's, at which the copy was placed, administrators and ask them to remove the copyrighted work, by linking to the original program.

Legally, even redistribution is not allowed under most copyright laws (I think).
Most open source projects use a license, especially on github where it is sooo easy to pick a license.
http://choosealicense.com/licenses/no-license/

I don't really see the point of a full blown license. The only time people just copy and paste and pass it off as their own is NDF-Jay clones.

Github's Terms of Service state that:

By setting your repositories to be viewed publicly, you agree to allow others to view and fork your repositories.

Everyone can view your code, if they can't then your post gets locked for 'No code to see'. Yes they could release it as Lua bytecode but I don't think that that has every happened :P/>. You can't really stop people forking/changing it either. I haven't found that people don't give credit where credit is due, so I don't see some sort of 'default license' as a necessity, or even desirable. And if it should be any, it should just be the Don't Be a Jerk License.

SquidDev, on 11 April 2015 - 08:52 AM said:

Yes they could release it as Lua bytecode

I believe that byte code is banned from the forums as it can smuggle malicious code, which is harder to detect.