Bad, bad license

[BozoDel]

Hey there!

I have to say, I don't think CC BY-SA is a good license for software. It's not written with software in mind, like the GPL.

Let's say I make a Gamebozodeluino, based on Gamebuino. CC BY-SA says I should release derivatives under the same license, and the binary is a derivative. But there's nothing there saying I should release source code too. So it's not really really copyleft when it applied to software. Maybe it's ok if you're going for some mild symbolic copyleft, like the MPL - the message is, you don't need to release source for everything, but it would be cool if you did.

[inversesandwich]

I agree. The GPL is much more suitable.

[adekto]

personaly i dont think we need to force people to release there source and stuff

[BozoDel]

Oh, wow, I just thought of something else entirely. I'm no programming expert, so please correct me if I'm wrong.

It seems that the Gamebuino libraries are compiled into the game, being a part of it. It's not like a layer on top of which the game runs.

Being copylefted, that means that EVERY GAME that uses them has to be under the same license! So both the GPL and CC BY-SA are probably a bad idea. The Enigma game engine is going through similar issues, they use GPL now but are probably going to change to a more permissive license.

In that case, I think MPL and zlib are the best options.

[Drakker]

Actually for something like the Gamebuino, Public Domain with mandatory credits is probably the way to go. This means no license at all, do whatever you want with the code, just credit the original authors. Making any money off selling software made specifically for the Gamebuino is very unlikely, the (small amount) of profit is in the hardware itself, and the specs are open anyway. I would not worry about cloning from Chinese companies of the Gamebuino and the software we make, they already sell much more powerful hardware for a fraction of the price of a Gamebuino.

[BozoDel]

The MIT license is pretty much public domain with mandatory credits, except that it sounds less contradictory. By MIT I mean this, as the FSF advises against saying MIT license without specifying which one, cause they've used many different licenses.

[Drakker]

That's exactly the same as the BSD license... the no liability clause might be a good idea, as it is not specified when code is released in the public domain.

[adekto]

say what licence can we put upon out games? since we basicly use the gamebuino code into the hex file wil that automaticly make the game CC BY-SA?

[BozoDel]

That's exactly the same as the BSD license...

Yup, MIT and 2-clause BSD are pretty much the same, and both short and easy to understand too.

the no liability clause might be a good idea,

and both of them have it.

as it is not specified when code is released in the public domain.

now, I don't know what you mean by that.

since we basicly use the gamebuino code into the hex file wil that automaticly make the game CC BY-SA?

Yes, that's the problem. Now, if Gamebuino code were MIT or BSD, games could be under any other license, open or proprietary.

[DFX2KX]

I hadn't thought about that, but Creative Commons is mostly for literary work, right? It'd be interesting to get Rodot's take on this.