haxejs license considerations

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
2 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

haxejs license considerations

Charles Pritchard
Responding to the new haxejs.org project:

I see that the project is looking at an MIT license. I'd like to see
libraries like this work with a public domain / CC0 license; something
that does not require attribution. While it makes a lot of sense for
code compilers to be licensed in a copyleft or attribution license, it
seems to me that carrying that license into the code it generates is
going too far.

Why should a developer have to include additional licenses in their
source code because of the tool they're using to author? Most Apple
source code examples are released under a no-attribution-necessary
license. That way, when people use them, and compile their applications,
they are not beholden to add notes in the manual, start-up screen and/or
source code about some portion of the code having come from Apple.

With JS, there's a similar situation. There are certainly libraries,
such as jquery and dojo, where attribution is requested, and they are
complex libraries. But haxejs seems to be trying to be a very minimal
library; the library is only needed for compatibility with typical haXe
development. Should all users of haxejs be required to attribute haxejs
in their source code?

-Charles

--
haXe - an open source web programming language
http://haxe.org
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: haxejs license considerations

singmajesty
Thank you Charles,

The messaging on haxejs.org may have been confusing how it was written.  
Hopefully this will be clearer:


"haxe JS is free, and most of the libraries are MIT-licensed. You can  
build non-profit or commercial projects without being encumbered by  
restrictive licenses, no attribution required."


The haxe compiler is GPL, most of the libraries are MIT, and your own  
code, is of course, your own, so it can be licensed however you please :)




On Thu, 13 Oct 2011 12:51:45 -0700, Charles Pritchard <[hidden email]>  
wrote:

> Responding to the new haxejs.org project:
>
> I see that the project is looking at an MIT license. I'd like to see  
> libraries like this work with a public domain / CC0 license; something  
> that does not require attribution. While it makes a lot of sense for  
> code compilers to be licensed in a copyleft or attribution license, it  
> seems to me that carrying that license into the code it generates is  
> going too far.
>
> Why should a developer have to include additional licenses in their  
> source code because of the tool they're using to author? Most Apple  
> source code examples are released under a no-attribution-necessary  
> license. That way, when people use them, and compile their applications,  
> they are not beholden to add notes in the manual, start-up screen and/or  
> source code about some portion of the code having come from Apple.
>
> With JS, there's a similar situation. There are certainly libraries,  
> such as jquery and dojo, where attribution is requested, and they are  
> complex libraries. But haxejs seems to be trying to be a very minimal  
> library; the library is only needed for compatibility with typical haXe  
> development. Should all users of haxejs be required to attribute haxejs  
> in their source code?
>
> -Charles

--
haXe - an open source web programming language
http://haxe.org