Code licensing requirements - please read our new rules!
Ken Gracey
Posts: 7,392
To All Forum Members,
Today we are formalizing our rules about posting code in OBEX and sharing it on the forums. Our rules are very simple:
If you are putting code on the forums, you are comfortable sharing it without restrictions. We share code because we enjoy doing so and helping others with their projects. Customers place a very high value on Parallax forums and we want to maintain an open atmosphere in which ideas are freely exchanged.
Parallax will not be a catalyst for legal threats, implied or present. Our customers find little value in any distractions from achieving their product designs and being the first to market. To this end, we don't want the forums to be a place of confusion when it comes to using code examples. Our forums should remain free of protective claims so we can openly share and reach our objectives.
We also have concerns about the impact of other licenses as they relate to our own efforts. For example, the forum members are actively developing their own unofficial Propeller 2 documentation; the GCC team is working towards a GCC port for Propeller 2; cross-platform, open-source programming IDEs and compilers are in the works; and Propeller 2 AppNotes will be developed prior to release. All of these efforts must freely use the best coding tricks available, without restriction. And these efforts will evolve openly on the forums.
Attribution and recognition is part of our environment. All forum members are encouraged to recognize those who helped them with their code. We have trust that people will follow this simple etiquette and recognize contributors.
Our last point is probably obvious, but for the Propeller 2 to prosper, this kind of policy is necessary. Considering the many years of intellectual investment of Chip, Beau and the whole Propeller 2 team on these forums (not to mention the financial cost) let's increase the opportunity for a success.
Thank you for your support.
Sincerely,
Ken Gracey
Today we are formalizing our rules about posting code in OBEX and sharing it on the forums. Our rules are very simple:
- Code uploaded to OBEX and the web forum complies with the MIT license, whether expressly included, or not.
- Code snippets, of the type typically quoted in the forum software [code] tag, are to be treated as MIT licensed, minus the requirement to include the license text and mandatory attribution. The function of the forum software provides adequate attribution in the majority of cases. We leave it to the good will of the community to resolve other cases amicably.
If you are putting code on the forums, you are comfortable sharing it without restrictions. We share code because we enjoy doing so and helping others with their projects. Customers place a very high value on Parallax forums and we want to maintain an open atmosphere in which ideas are freely exchanged.
Parallax will not be a catalyst for legal threats, implied or present. Our customers find little value in any distractions from achieving their product designs and being the first to market. To this end, we don't want the forums to be a place of confusion when it comes to using code examples. Our forums should remain free of protective claims so we can openly share and reach our objectives.
We also have concerns about the impact of other licenses as they relate to our own efforts. For example, the forum members are actively developing their own unofficial Propeller 2 documentation; the GCC team is working towards a GCC port for Propeller 2; cross-platform, open-source programming IDEs and compilers are in the works; and Propeller 2 AppNotes will be developed prior to release. All of these efforts must freely use the best coding tricks available, without restriction. And these efforts will evolve openly on the forums.
Attribution and recognition is part of our environment. All forum members are encouraged to recognize those who helped them with their code. We have trust that people will follow this simple etiquette and recognize contributors.
Our last point is probably obvious, but for the Propeller 2 to prosper, this kind of policy is necessary. Considering the many years of intellectual investment of Chip, Beau and the whole Propeller 2 team on these forums (not to mention the financial cost) let's increase the opportunity for a success.
Thank you for your support.
Sincerely,
Ken Gracey
Comments
No problems for me on that
I wish we could have kept it as source code postings on the forums have no license implied, and if you want one then include it in the posting.
No objections here.
Thank you for stating that.
Now back to work!
Mike
It cannot, as previous posts were made prior to the MIT policy.
You ask tough questions, Cody.
I don't think it's fair for us to be retroactive with our rules, so "no". Fozzie Bear might have something to say, too.
I appreciate the kind words in my thread, it is gratifying that you not only understood that I never intended anything untoward, but would say so in my thread.
Now everyone knows that in the future if they want to post some non-MIT code, they should just post a link to it hosted somewhere else.
Thanks again,
Bill
Both you and Roy said is was too bad it had to come to this, but why? I don't see it as really a change, at all, just a clarification. It's not like everyone's going to have to attach MIT license text to every code snippet and we'll be forever scrolling past it. So, why is it troubling?
FWIW I declare all my previous code postings (including spreadsheets, etc) are MIT so anyone is free to do with them what they like. I had assumed, that without stating anything to the contrary, that my code postings were completely open.
Thank you for a solid product with the best of support for the most users.
Frank
Re: That ugly licensing discussion. No harm, no foul. Seriously, it's a discussion that needed to be had, and having it means speaking our minds, whatever that is. Can't fault anyone for that.
Small bits of code have been troublesome for many people. Some ignore the problem, some blanket license, some require registration and legal. IMHO, the policy here is equitable, practical, sensible. We all can work together with no worries.
You bet, Bill!
I guess somebody needed to bring this whole issue to a head, at some point, and you turned out to be THAT guy. Thanks for going through it all. I hope any GI distress is now abating.
There's a saying that, if you like sausage, you don't want to see it being made. This process was certainly no exception! Yet, for better or wurst, I think we've come to a good place in forum history. Profuse good thanks to Ken and Chip for doing the necessary codification, to Bill Henning for patiently enduring the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune, to ctwardell for broaching the question in the first place, to idbruce for his role as the "loyal opposition", and to everyone else who contributed, painful though some of it may have been.
Now I really should go back to make sure I'm not copying something that Heater already posted, but screw it: he'll understand.
'Time to get back to work, boys and girls!
-Phil
As I said before I understand your position on this, I am just bummed that we had to come to doing it. These forums have gone along just fine for years without it. I liked it better when we didn't worry about it, and didn't have to, but I guess now we have to.
In any case, MIT license is perfectly acceptable to me. It's what I use for everything I have control over choosing the license on.
Also, for what it's worth, I am sorry for whatever grief I may have caused Bill (or anyone else) with my postings on the license related threads.
Roy
But, isn't is better to have some known-good licensing status than none at all, to dispel what Frank called "FUD" (fear, uncertainty, and doubt)? I also think that by making people recognize that they are giving by their own free will and receiving with no strings attached, a happier attitude is fostered and there is less opportunity for bad feelings to develop. What is there to worry about?
Sorry as I need say that.
For some people it is problem -- Can't claim that it is theirs work.
Yeah, that's probably true. I just think about times long past when everyone shared stuff freely and there was no license Smile at all. Like back in the 80s when I was learning to programs, or before.
Honestly, if it were up to me, all software would be completely free of any license, patent, or restrictions. Software is just not that hard or even that innovative. Without the hardware giving it life, software is nothing. There's really not anything new in software other than things enabled by new hardware. Yes, I say that being a guy that makes a living off of writing software...
I agree with you, but nowadays some prophylactic is required to keep the lawyer mentality from crashing the party. The MIT license rolls the social contract back to what it was when we were young. It has no practical effect on how we enjoy our work.
*sigh*
Say that to Microsoft --- So we not need pay them that much for theirs.
I was not aware of the discussion but I'm glad there is EOD. We are always in the conflict of giving and taking. Billie Holiday: "God Bless The Child" tells the story. But here in this forum it is like entering in a forest and the question is: build a ship, build a house or create a little piece of art work. But one thing is clear: You can not make use of all that is given for free. You are limited by yourself. The value of any contribution always comes from the fact that it is cheaper do by then to make if the contribution has a value.
ErNa
Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year. Maya calendar comes to an end, if will be now AP][
If you make money by writing software (and I have done this in the past) it would make more sense to post a small piece of code that is useful. Then have a comment that the public can license (or buy) the fully implemented code in private.
It was kind of silly to have to include the license text in everything posted, when the rule was that you couldn't post any code that didn't include the license.
Bean