Re: [DIYbio] Fwd: [OpenSCAD] License for scad files

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.12 (GNU/Linux)
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=1JpV
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
My early stuff is still CC-BY-SA-NC, which is irrevocable (with good
reason). I've since relicensed twice: once to switch to CC-BY-SA (I
attained anti-NC enlightenment) and once to switch to GPL, realising
that as far as it matters, OpenSCAD remains "source code" for a
compiled file in the same way that source code for a program is for a
compiled binary.

The process of "compilation" is what distinguishes
source code, and whether the product is a binary or a physible or a DNA
molecule appears to me irrelevant, though I don't know whether a court
would back me up.

So, people can pick whether they like CC-BY-SA or GPL, but I rather GPL.

In the end, it's irrelevant to my own needs; someone ripped off
Dremelfuge on Shapeways (that is, they derived without licensing
freely, let alone an optional nod or attributive note), and Shapeways
have taken the position that it's not their problem, and I lack the
money or motivation to threaten suit. So the license is nice, but
without enforcement it's no use.

Yes, if a big guy (TM) ripped me off, I'd contemplate suing them for
free licensing and legal fees, so it's not pointless. Just griping, I
guess; copyright and patents are not designed to protect or facilitate
small people, and good things built upon them inherit this basic
uselessness.

On Tue, 29 Oct 2013 18:58:26 -0400
"Meredith L. Patterson" <clonearmy@gmail.com> wrote:

> Naive question: what about (L)GPL/GFDL instead of (L)GPL/CC?
>
> Cheers,
> --mlp
>
>
> On Tue, Oct 29, 2013 at 5:57 PM, Bryan Bishop <kanzure@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> >
> > From: Johannes Reinhardt <jreinhardt@ist-dein-freund.de>
> > Date: Tue, Oct 29, 2013 at 4:55 PM
> > Subject: [OpenSCAD] License for scad files
> > To: "openscad@rocklinux.org" <openscad@rocklinux.org>
> >
> >
> > Hi everybody,
> >
> > while working on BOLTS, I started to think about licensing and scad
> > code and realised that this is a quite complicated topic. I am not a
> > lawyer, so I struggled quite a bit with that. Licenses are of some
> > importance to BOLTS, because I want to make sure, that existing code
> > can be incorporated with little effort, and for that I have to make
> > sure that this is legally possible.
> >
> > I reached a state where I think I understood and then tried to
> > write it up:
> >
> > http://jreinhardt.github.io/BOLTS/doc/general/licensing.html
> >
> > However, today I thought about it from another perspective and
> > struggled again, so I decided to ask for your expertise, maybe you
> > can point out if I misunderstood something.
> >
> > The main problem for me is that scad code is somehow both code and
> > content. On the one hand one can see a scad file as something that
> > is a description of an object, just like a stl file. If you look at
> > it like that, then a CC license makes perfect sense.
> >
> > On the other hand, scad code is very much code. You can have a scad
> > library that is not a description of an object. For that, I feel, a
> > license tailored towards code, like the GPL or LGPL is better
> > suited. MCAD for example is LGPL.
> >
> > But CC and (L)GPL are incompatible, which means that one cannot use
> > them together. Unfortunately, a lot of the scad code that is around
> > is CC licensed, because the standard license on thingiverse is CC.
> > I find this very unsatisfactory that the available scad code is
> > fragmented into legally incompatible subsets.
> >
> > Greetings
> >
> > Johannes
> >
> >
> > --
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > OpenSCAD mailing list
> > OpenSCAD@rocklinux.org
> > http://rocklinux.net/mailman/listinfo/openscad
> > http://openscad.org - https://flattr.com/thing/121566
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > - Bryan
> > http://heybryan.org/
> > 1 512 203 0507
> >
> > --
> > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the
> > Google Groups DIYbio group. To post to this group, send email to
> > diybio@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email
> > to diybio+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit
> > this group at https://groups.google.com/d/forum/diybio?hl=en
> > Learn more at www.diybio.org
> > ---
> > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
> > Groups "DIYbio" group.
> > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it,
> > send an email to diybio+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
> > To post to this group, send email to diybio@googlegroups.com.
> > Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/diybio.
> > To view this discussion on the web visit
> > https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/diybio/CABaSBawzubc3cQnbK%2BoXgPhoEq3oSOWcpBdndwP8BKENBAZ-2w%40mail.gmail.com
> > .
> > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
> >
>