Great, then you should have no objection to MIT code postings here. Not doing that amounts to getting something for nothing and it devalues the place and given our investment, that's expensive!!
To be really clear here, it's not so important that everybody DOES benefit, only that they CAN benefit. That's how the forum works and the value of it is why we all will invest time here. People are expensive. That time does not come cheap.
Whether or not you actually DO benefit determines the value of the forum for you, and all of us evaluate that individually.
Great, then you should have no objection to MIT code postings here. Not doing that amounts to getting something for nothing and it devalues the place and given our investment, that's expensive!!
That is a bunch of horse manure and you know it. I devote my time and effort into this forum like everyone else.
Yes, and you get the benefit just like everybody else too Bruce, and the MIT license insures you get that. If we start with other licenses, say my thought example where it's MIT for everybody except people whose first name begins with "B", then not everybody benefits and the value is reduced for no purpose other than to benefit whoever issued the license.
Wouldn't that be crappy Bruce? If I actually did that, people would cry foul even if they were in the group who didn't have the unfortunate first name, and they would do so because it limits how the forum works and it would do so for my personal entertainment, which is no better justification than my personal profit. Works the same way, has the same impact. This is why MIT makes the most sense. We get the maximum value out of the time we invest here. Why do anything else?
Most of those reasons are personal gain, and there is nothing wrong with that Bruce, but why or any of us make investments like that without also having the same opportunity or share in the potential returns? Would you do that? Who would? That is my "getting something for nothing" comment in a nut shell. Of course you put time in here, and thanks for it. You get the same benefit as anyone else does too.
Case in point, the document I contributed yesterday. That thing is a few hundred dollar investment right now. Now, I enjoy this stuff and entertainment counts in life, and it's worth it to me so I don't expect anything. But, if somebody asked me to author content for them that wouldn't be shared as part of this resource, I would quote them with no reservations. Many here feel the same way.
I'm making it because I believe the more people there are running the P2 emulation, the more benefit I will receive for their labors together with me here. In a very simple sense, I'm willing to help them help me, plus it's fun. Make no mistake though, real dollars are attached to that fun. Just try and get something like that started without the pull a forum as good as this one has.
Parallax has a list of consultants they've come to know for that purpose and they pay annual salaries to their FAE's for those queries related to their products that cannot be disclosed publicly.
I don't think it's a stretch to assume that Parallax makes a six figure investment each year to add value to their products, and they offer that over the phone gratis, as well as live tech support for the same purpose.
The forum only works the way it does when we all benefit from the interactions here. Go and take a tour of other places where that is not the norm. Seriously. I'll wait....
I'm a fan of the GPL, but it can pollute code in that the cost of the GPL is that derivatives also be open like the GPL. Long time ago we had this discussion and the forum dynamics indicated that MIT was the way to go. People can come here, get help, have fun, do whatever they find makes sense and others can take from here and go and build whatever makes sense with the whole thing funded by each of us getting value out of it all as we need.
The key here is NO ENTANGLEMENTS. That is where the value is and the GPL doesn't work that way.
The GPL doesn't work that way, because all the code derived from it must be open, which is why MIT made the most sense here, and for the OBEX. Being a fan of the GPL, that took a while for me to digest. Let's just say I agree with the MIT premise and it's intended for things like this --resources that can be freely exploited, which the forum is.
Really, forum code should just be MIT. Anything else can be hosted elsewhere. What gets put here needs to be freely quotable without entanglements, or we can't get the value we do. Parallax stated intent was to build a body of code that anybody running Propeller chips can tap into and get stuff done. MIT is the license that permits that. Anyone contributing does so with that in mind, and is free to post up restricted code where ever else they like, and they can tell us all about it too. Nothing bad about restricted code either. It often makes sense.
I used GPL on the original Potatotext. Got feedback that many couldn't employ it, and couldn't even view the code because of policy where they work. While contemplating that, Hippy rewrote it as MIT and it became AiGeneric. I've since removed the GPL so that the original isn't a problem. The GPL won't work well here for that reason. It's a perfectly fine license otherwise though.
Where I would want to not have somebody freely use the code, I won't put it here. Plenty of places to host things, and any of us can do that and post a note for the group to go and check it out. That makes perfect sense. Maybe that activity leads to licensing code, or a consulting gig, or some other thing that funds the activity.
Frankly, this is why I don't answer PM requests for help privately either. Doing that is consulting, and it's not reasonable to work for free in that context.
I sincerely hope that Parallax does not take the same view as you, because one license does not fit all. There is a lot of useful code out there that will never see the light of day if an MIT license is required. I cannot speak for everyone, but I do not need an MIT license attached to every piece of code that I use.
Bruce, I don't think you understand. This is basically what you've been doing right along with everybody else. Formalizing it insures you continue to get to do that!
MIT code is code you do what you want to with. If you see code here, you can take it and put it into your product with no requirement to disclose said code. GPL won't let you do that, for example. We all do that so we all have a lot of code and help to make use of, commercially or otherwise.
With MIT, you won't be entangled for your interactions here, meaning you only have to sort out what you feel is worth sharing and or sharing what is needed to get you the help you need for a closed, private product. And if you can't share any of it, you can pay somebody to help you through.
You can even come here and just take code! I think this happens everyday. We get enough value out of that to not be a worry.
Additionally, this isn't the only place to host code. Anyone wanting to share code with non MIT licenses is completely free to do that and drop a note here so we all know about it and can go check it out.
I understand it very clearly, but I don't think you understand. You are asking every author to give up all their rights before posting any code. Where is the logic in that? How much useful code will be bypassed because an author is unwilling to give up all their rights?
It doesn't work any other way. Nobody has to post any code at all. Again, you can come here and just take code. You can come here and just ask questions, and if you get code in response, keep it and move on too.
But, if you do post code, it needs to be on the same terms, or the place breaks down as restricted code cannot be freely quoted without entanglements.
We have the quality of discussion and the traffic we do because of that dynamic. Either it's worth it, or it's not. Again, look at the financial arguments. This stuff isn't cheap. You get a hell of a deal for contributing here.
BY the way, you don't give up all your rights. You retain the right of ownership, and are completely free to license that code in other ways for financial gain.
Here's a scenario:
You have a product of some kind. Let's say it's a software product and it's going to be sold, but you've got one sticking point on it... That sticking point is impacting your time to market and that is an expensive problem. What options do you have?
1. Call Parallax and tap the FAE's that Ken is paying for to help you get your product done. That's private.
2. Pay a consultant, and you do that because the opportunity cost exceeds the consulting costs. No brainer. That's private too.
3. Share your returns with a programmer who can get you through with sweat equity. This doesn't cost you much on the front end, and the risks are shared and it's private too.
4. Post up the portion that you need help with, and provide just enough context to get that help gratis here. This is not private because you are not paying for that privacy. A quick search by you, or anybody here may well yield your answer as it's already been addressed. Sweet! Valuable compared to that consultant or lots of R&D time, isn't it? Damn right it is.
When you are done with all of those, you have your product and are free to license it any way you want to.
If you get the free help, that code is shared and that is what funds the free help. The answers the group come up with are shared too, for the same reason.
Anything else and you are simply asking for something for nothing and that's just not a reasonable proposition.
On that note, option 5.
Phone a friend who will help you because they love you. Are we that kind of friends here Bruce?
Option 6.
Manipulate somebody into giving you want you want so you can then sell it. Really? People do it all the time, and should that be expected?
So you are suggesting that Chip also does not understand his own forum?
Chip stated: After reading all this, I think it's best that we simply don't share any idea on the forum that we consider, in any degree or form, to be our exclusive property.
This is a discussion forum, and we are discussing different points of view. Many men have changed their minds after hearing an alternate point of view. Pertaining specifically to what Chip stated, I believe at that point, a blanket license requirement would be needed, and it would only hurt the participating forum members. Blanket policies are not very effective, because ignorance can always be claimed.
"Please wait while I have my lawyer evaluate the forum user policy".
The courts realize that many users will simply click the "I Agree" button, without reading and deciphering all the legalese, and not many us carry a lawyer around in our back pockets. In order for their to be a binding contract, there must be a meeting of the minds, and blanket policies often fail to meet this requirement.
I think that's best evan. Doesn't work any other way really, unless we find a way to fund things.
I can and do publish GPL code myself, just not here and right now not on Propeller. I'm a fan for a variety of reasons myself. And the GPL needs to be how it is so that body of code grows and remains open too. Nothing wrong with that. But, the reality here is many people can't make use of the forum with those kinds of entanglements.
Not sure who does not understand what, but Potatohead and Chip seem to be in agreement. As am I. Except I'm still pondering if forcing any particular licence on tiny bits of code in forum posts makes any sense.
Potatohead says if you want to get help on the forum show your code and use the MIT license, as I think we implicitly do anyway. Posting some code here as part of a question and then taking the result with out expecting that whole transaction to now be available to all is just not reasonable or fair. Making that snippet of code available to all is the price for the assistance you get. If you are just posting your code here to show how smart you are then allowing anyone to use it is the price you pay for that. If you don't want to play fair or you feel your code is so valuable elsewhere then just don't post the code here, as Chip says. Then of course you are free to hire a consultant to work on it if you like.
I have no problem with the MIT license when I feel like giving it all away, but to make a blanket policy....
Fine.... Go with the blanket MIT license policy.... Give all your rights away. You are the ones that will suffer, not the people that don't contribute.
Yeah, I'm thinking about that too. An implied MIT would make a lot of sense. However it gets done, I think the key test is freely quotable here at a minimum. Something like that.
You know the trouble with these things is it all works great, until it doesn't, then we all have to think about it. In my signature line, I've got "Be Excellent To One Another" and that's kind of how I tend to resolve small matters. Maybe it's enough to express the intent so that we move forward and it's clear where the major boundaries are. Small snippets are just painful to nail down. Maybe we don't have to. Hope not.
I agree with T Chap, if Parallax and the ring-0 gurus want MIT code only it should be made explicit. Otherwise we'll see another poster get scorched and taken out to the woodshed for a beat down by the gurus should they not embrace the MIT license.
Sadly it also shows that being a long time contributor means nothing here if you violate some unwritten law. This isn't right nor decent.
I agree with T Chap, if Parallax and the ring-0 gurus want MIT code only it should be made explicit. Otherwise we'll see another poster get scorched and taken out to the woodshed for a beat down by the gurus should they not embrace the MIT license.
Sadly it also shows that being a long time contributor means nothing here if you violate some unwritten law. This isn't right nor decent.
Hmmm "This isn't right nor decent"...
Have you read the entire thread?
So it is right and decent to take advantage of Parallax giving a preview of the P2 and start sticking flags in the ground and claiming territory.
It's right and decent to claim it when the only thing that makes it novel is the novel architecture used by Chip?
It's right and decent to solicit help on a thread letting others help you figure out the pipeline and then turn around and claim ownership of code derived from those discussions?
It's right and decent to present something as a gift with strings attached?
I agree with T Chap, if Parallax and the ring-0 gurus want MIT code only it be made explicit. Otherwise we'll see another poster get scorched and taken out to the woodshed for a beat down by the gurus should they not embrace the MIT license.
Sadly it also shows that being a long time contributor means nothing here if you violate some unwritten law.
I fervently believe that MIT licensing belongs strictly in the OBEX, and not in the forums. To actively enforce explicit forum licensing, there would need to be an active mechanism put in place for every post, and this probably would not even guarantee enforcement. In other words, when placing a post, a message box with a yellow exclamation pointing out that all code submitted has an MIT license attached, with the addition of the MIT license terms and conditions within the same message box.
EDIT: And then add the MIT license to every post that contains code
Personally, I am OK with explicit. If it's here, it's MIT period. Simple, easy.
Being a long time contributor doesn't grant any of us some special status to exploit the forum like that. Cuts both ways. Many feel the gift wasn't, which triggered this entire discussion. That said, I think pride is at work here. The whole thing could have been avoided with a common sense response. That didn't happen. It still can though! Personally, I'm not going to hold any grudge. I will however advocate we keep the forum dynamics productive for everybody, which I've done and none of that is intended nor implied as any negative toward Bill. I like Bill. I don't like how this all went.
I would imagine by now Parallax is considering locking this thread down. Not to mention others it seems to have spawned.
So I'm going to try and end my copyright/attribution contribution with one last thing:
I have the greatest respect and admiration for Bill Henning and am very grateful for his many contributions to the Parallax/Propeller world and especially contributions to my little efforts.
I just require attribution to using the clut/stack as an instruction store for a quite optimal byte code execution engine.
Now I am quite happy to credit authors of bits of code I use in my projects or those who are the sources of ideas I use within my code. You will see that almost all my humble offerings contain such attributions.
I would quite likely give credit to Bill in anything I wrote that used his published CLUT lookup and execute code. Basically because, although I have not seen it, he has probably hit on the optimal code sequence that does it. I have not even started to study Prop II instructions yet, even if I had I may never have hit on the optimal solution. If anyone offers it to me I will use it and give credit.
However. Bills statement goes too far. It is not a statement about that particular published code but rather a statement about the the very idea of using that COG memory space as a look up table for bytecode dispatch.
I believe any one who has thought about bytecode interpreters, virtual machines or emulators would have immediately thought "Hey I can use that PII CLUT/STACK memory space as my dispatch table store" as soon as they heard about it. I believe that because I'm a dumb Smile and it had already occurred to me, although I have no detailed idea as to how it might actually be done in PII code.
Bottom line is that I ever get around to creating Zog or ZiCog or whatever for PII and using the CLUT as a dispatch table Bill will get referenced specially if I end up using his exact code. However in the unlikely event that I use CLUT like that in a closed source commercial product that is not going to happen. Should I really be expected to print Bill's name on the PCB or enclosure or burden my user manual with a huge long list of Parallax forum members names and their contributions?
Why do Americans have this gut reaction to label anything they are arguing against as "communist" in a derogatory way?
Bruce, why do you believe that fair trade of goods, or a fair trade of goods for money in a free market is OK where as a fair trade in ideas by voluntary participants is "communist" and bad. The forum is a market you know.
The MIT license is not a problem for those who want to take code from the forum and use it in their software for any purpose including closed source commercial distribution.
It should not be a problem for commercial developers who post snippets here asking for help. If it is and they are expecting apply restrictions on their posted snippets perhaps they should just not do that. They can hire a consultant under NDA to fix their problems.
Comments
To be really clear here, it's not so important that everybody DOES benefit, only that they CAN benefit. That's how the forum works and the value of it is why we all will invest time here. People are expensive. That time does not come cheap.
Whether or not you actually DO benefit determines the value of the forum for you, and all of us evaluate that individually.
... in it's communal form. :P
That is a bunch of horse manure and you know it. I devote my time and effort into this forum like everyone else.
Wouldn't that be crappy Bruce? If I actually did that, people would cry foul even if they were in the group who didn't have the unfortunate first name, and they would do so because it limits how the forum works and it would do so for my personal entertainment, which is no better justification than my personal profit. Works the same way, has the same impact. This is why MIT makes the most sense. We get the maximum value out of the time we invest here. Why do anything else?
Most of those reasons are personal gain, and there is nothing wrong with that Bruce, but why or any of us make investments like that without also having the same opportunity or share in the potential returns? Would you do that? Who would? That is my "getting something for nothing" comment in a nut shell. Of course you put time in here, and thanks for it. You get the same benefit as anyone else does too.
Case in point, the document I contributed yesterday. That thing is a few hundred dollar investment right now. Now, I enjoy this stuff and entertainment counts in life, and it's worth it to me so I don't expect anything. But, if somebody asked me to author content for them that wouldn't be shared as part of this resource, I would quote them with no reservations. Many here feel the same way.
I'm making it because I believe the more people there are running the P2 emulation, the more benefit I will receive for their labors together with me here. In a very simple sense, I'm willing to help them help me, plus it's fun. Make no mistake though, real dollars are attached to that fun. Just try and get something like that started without the pull a forum as good as this one has.
Parallax has a list of consultants they've come to know for that purpose and they pay annual salaries to their FAE's for those queries related to their products that cannot be disclosed publicly.
I don't think it's a stretch to assume that Parallax makes a six figure investment each year to add value to their products, and they offer that over the phone gratis, as well as live tech support for the same purpose.
The forum only works the way it does when we all benefit from the interactions here. Go and take a tour of other places where that is not the norm. Seriously. I'll wait....
The key here is NO ENTANGLEMENTS. That is where the value is and the GPL doesn't work that way.
The GPL doesn't work that way, because all the code derived from it must be open, which is why MIT made the most sense here, and for the OBEX. Being a fan of the GPL, that took a while for me to digest. Let's just say I agree with the MIT premise and it's intended for things like this --resources that can be freely exploited, which the forum is.
Really, forum code should just be MIT. Anything else can be hosted elsewhere. What gets put here needs to be freely quotable without entanglements, or we can't get the value we do. Parallax stated intent was to build a body of code that anybody running Propeller chips can tap into and get stuff done. MIT is the license that permits that. Anyone contributing does so with that in mind, and is free to post up restricted code where ever else they like, and they can tell us all about it too. Nothing bad about restricted code either. It often makes sense.
I used GPL on the original Potatotext. Got feedback that many couldn't employ it, and couldn't even view the code because of policy where they work. While contemplating that, Hippy rewrote it as MIT and it became AiGeneric. I've since removed the GPL so that the original isn't a problem. The GPL won't work well here for that reason. It's a perfectly fine license otherwise though.
Where I would want to not have somebody freely use the code, I won't put it here. Plenty of places to host things, and any of us can do that and post a note for the group to go and check it out. That makes perfect sense. Maybe that activity leads to licensing code, or a consulting gig, or some other thing that funds the activity.
Frankly, this is why I don't answer PM requests for help privately either. Doing that is consulting, and it's not reasonable to work for free in that context.
The CC licenses have another issue altogether in that they are explicitly naming each compatible license - so far, only itself is in that list.
MIT code is code you do what you want to with. If you see code here, you can take it and put it into your product with no requirement to disclose said code. GPL won't let you do that, for example. We all do that so we all have a lot of code and help to make use of, commercially or otherwise.
With MIT, you won't be entangled for your interactions here, meaning you only have to sort out what you feel is worth sharing and or sharing what is needed to get you the help you need for a closed, private product. And if you can't share any of it, you can pay somebody to help you through.
You can even come here and just take code! I think this happens everyday. We get enough value out of that to not be a worry.
Additionally, this isn't the only place to host code. Anyone wanting to share code with non MIT licenses is completely free to do that and drop a note here so we all know about it and can go check it out.
I understand it very clearly, but I don't think you understand. You are asking every author to give up all their rights before posting any code. Where is the logic in that? How much useful code will be bypassed because an author is unwilling to give up all their rights?
But, if you do post code, it needs to be on the same terms, or the place breaks down as restricted code cannot be freely quoted without entanglements.
We have the quality of discussion and the traffic we do because of that dynamic. Either it's worth it, or it's not. Again, look at the financial arguments. This stuff isn't cheap. You get a hell of a deal for contributing here.
BY the way, you don't give up all your rights. You retain the right of ownership, and are completely free to license that code in other ways for financial gain.
Here's a scenario:
You have a product of some kind. Let's say it's a software product and it's going to be sold, but you've got one sticking point on it... That sticking point is impacting your time to market and that is an expensive problem. What options do you have?
1. Call Parallax and tap the FAE's that Ken is paying for to help you get your product done. That's private.
2. Pay a consultant, and you do that because the opportunity cost exceeds the consulting costs. No brainer. That's private too.
3. Share your returns with a programmer who can get you through with sweat equity. This doesn't cost you much on the front end, and the risks are shared and it's private too.
4. Post up the portion that you need help with, and provide just enough context to get that help gratis here. This is not private because you are not paying for that privacy. A quick search by you, or anybody here may well yield your answer as it's already been addressed. Sweet! Valuable compared to that consultant or lots of R&D time, isn't it? Damn right it is.
When you are done with all of those, you have your product and are free to license it any way you want to.
If you get the free help, that code is shared and that is what funds the free help. The answers the group come up with are shared too, for the same reason.
Anything else and you are simply asking for something for nothing and that's just not a reasonable proposition.
On that note, option 5.
Phone a friend who will help you because they love you. Are we that kind of friends here Bruce?
Option 6.
Manipulate somebody into giving you want you want so you can then sell it. Really? People do it all the time, and should that be expected?
Chip stated: After reading all this, I think it's best that we simply don't share any idea on the forum that we consider, in any degree or form, to be our exclusive property.
Why argue with the owner of the chip and forum.
This is a discussion forum, and we are discussing different points of view. Many men have changed their minds after hearing an alternate point of view. Pertaining specifically to what Chip stated, I believe at that point, a blanket license requirement would be needed, and it would only hurt the participating forum members. Blanket policies are not very effective, because ignorance can always be claimed.
I can and do publish GPL code myself, just not here and right now not on Propeller. I'm a fan for a variety of reasons myself. And the GPL needs to be how it is so that body of code grows and remains open too. Nothing wrong with that. But, the reality here is many people can't make use of the forum with those kinds of entanglements.
Potatohead says if you want to get help on the forum show your code and use the MIT license, as I think we implicitly do anyway. Posting some code here as part of a question and then taking the result with out expecting that whole transaction to now be available to all is just not reasonable or fair. Making that snippet of code available to all is the price for the assistance you get. If you are just posting your code here to show how smart you are then allowing anyone to use it is the price you pay for that. If you don't want to play fair or you feel your code is so valuable elsewhere then just don't post the code here, as Chip says. Then of course you are free to hire a consultant to work on it if you like.
Fine.... Go with the blanket MIT license policy.... Give all your rights away. You are the ones that will suffer, not the people that don't contribute.
Yeah, I'm thinking about that too. An implied MIT would make a lot of sense. However it gets done, I think the key test is freely quotable here at a minimum. Something like that.
You know the trouble with these things is it all works great, until it doesn't, then we all have to think about it. In my signature line, I've got "Be Excellent To One Another" and that's kind of how I tend to resolve small matters. Maybe it's enough to express the intent so that we move forward and it's clear where the major boundaries are. Small snippets are just painful to nail down. Maybe we don't have to. Hope not.
It is not an easy problem to resolve, but implied intent just doesn't cut the mustard. A copyright is a copyright is a copyright etc...........
Sadly it also shows that being a long time contributor means nothing here if you violate some unwritten law. This isn't right nor decent.
Hmmm "This isn't right nor decent"...
Have you read the entire thread?
So it is right and decent to take advantage of Parallax giving a preview of the P2 and start sticking flags in the ground and claiming territory.
It's right and decent to claim it when the only thing that makes it novel is the novel architecture used by Chip?
It's right and decent to solicit help on a thread letting others help you figure out the pipeline and then turn around and claim ownership of code derived from those discussions?
It's right and decent to present something as a gift with strings attached?
C.W.
I fervently believe that MIT licensing belongs strictly in the OBEX, and not in the forums. To actively enforce explicit forum licensing, there would need to be an active mechanism put in place for every post, and this probably would not even guarantee enforcement. In other words, when placing a post, a message box with a yellow exclamation pointing out that all code submitted has an MIT license attached, with the addition of the MIT license terms and conditions within the same message box.
EDIT: And then add the MIT license to every post that contains code
Being a long time contributor doesn't grant any of us some special status to exploit the forum like that. Cuts both ways. Many feel the gift wasn't, which triggered this entire discussion. That said, I think pride is at work here. The whole thing could have been avoided with a common sense response. That didn't happen. It still can though! Personally, I'm not going to hold any grudge. I will however advocate we keep the forum dynamics productive for everybody, which I've done and none of that is intended nor implied as any negative toward Bill. I like Bill. I don't like how this all went.
(removed)
So I'm going to try and end my copyright/attribution contribution with one last thing:
I have the greatest respect and admiration for Bill Henning and am very grateful for his many contributions to the Parallax/Propeller world and especially contributions to my little efforts.
However I do have a problem with this: Now I am quite happy to credit authors of bits of code I use in my projects or those who are the sources of ideas I use within my code. You will see that almost all my humble offerings contain such attributions.
I would quite likely give credit to Bill in anything I wrote that used his published CLUT lookup and execute code. Basically because, although I have not seen it, he has probably hit on the optimal code sequence that does it. I have not even started to study Prop II instructions yet, even if I had I may never have hit on the optimal solution. If anyone offers it to me I will use it and give credit.
However. Bills statement goes too far. It is not a statement about that particular published code but rather a statement about the the very idea of using that COG memory space as a look up table for bytecode dispatch.
I believe any one who has thought about bytecode interpreters, virtual machines or emulators would have immediately thought "Hey I can use that PII CLUT/STACK memory space as my dispatch table store" as soon as they heard about it. I believe that because I'm a dumb Smile and it had already occurred to me, although I have no detailed idea as to how it might actually be done in PII code.
Bottom line is that I ever get around to creating Zog or ZiCog or whatever for PII and using the CLUT as a dispatch table Bill will get referenced specially if I end up using his exact code. However in the unlikely event that I use CLUT like that in a closed source commercial product that is not going to happen. Should I really be expected to print Bill's name on the PCB or enclosure or burden my user manual with a huge long list of Parallax forum members names and their contributions? Why do Americans have this gut reaction to label anything they are arguing against as "communist" in a derogatory way?
Bruce, why do you believe that fair trade of goods, or a fair trade of goods for money in a free market is OK where as a fair trade in ideas by voluntary participants is "communist" and bad. The forum is a market you know. Please tell whom it does not suit and why.
The MIT license is not a problem for those who want to take code from the forum and use it in their software for any purpose including closed source commercial distribution.
It should not be a problem for commercial developers who post snippets here asking for help. If it is and they are expecting apply restrictions on their posted snippets perhaps they should just not do that. They can hire a consultant under NDA to fix their problems.
LOL. I think you are being naive. Now we are branching off into contract law.
(content reconsidered as not productive)