quick reminder, lets keep this topic focused on the licence on objects, its easy to stray into open source good/bad, whcih licenses are better... but take that to another topic please, id like to get to a resolution on this topic.
a few observations:
- all users using axoloti agree to a GPL when they start the axoloti patcher
- axoloti code/factory objects are covered by the liberal BSD license.
- when you submit code to axoloti community library, is YOUR account, not the repo ownership, so you need to respect the GitHub T&C.
- any user contributing code, has signed a GitHub agreement, see here , this says you cannot publish anything which infringes copyright.
personally, I don't think the license field on objects has any 'contractual meaning', so want to remove it.
(BSD/GPL/MIT all require that the user is given access to the license terms, we do not provide this)
if you are contributing code on a public GitHub, then you are saying you have permission to let others use that code, at least in source form.... so for using in a patch, private compiled , I cannot see any issue.
However, a GPL licence of any object used, would mean, no user could release a BINARY form UNLESS they also release ALL of their code, i.e. they could not have their own private code.
It is the responsibility of person producing/releasing the binary to comply to all licenses of code he/she uses... and the owner of the code right to pursue them. (axoloti has no part in this relationship)
(it is therefore these two parties that would have to decide if the license field carries enough 'legal weight' or as @mongrol said, would it fall to a 'default ownership' rule.)
what is axoloti's role?
difficult, its certainly not policing or restricting, if you want to produce code which you don't release open source, or its under GPL, as the author that is your decision, if you want to release under BSD thats cool too.
I think the key is, ensuring users using objects know who the owner is, and some idea of their licensing model
what do we do now?
I previously mentioned, in the future, we are moving to a model, where the 'ownership' of the code will be more apparent.
this model will replace the existing community library., but the existing library will be required still for a while for 'transition'
I think the question is, what do we do till then
a) leave as is... whilst its not 100% clear, it just means a 'commercial' interest will have to do the 'legwork' and see clarity from contributors they use.
b) get agreement by all contributors to move to BSD (in line with factory, and less restrictive), any contributor that feels they cannot agree to this, then we will willing remove their objects from the library.
(they can host their objects elsewhere, and include a link in their contributors post)
(a) might seem like 'dodging' the issue - but personally, if I were planning to use someone else code GPL/MIT/BSD or not, I would ask them.... this is common courtesy, rather than a legal requirement and important in a small community - so I don't think its a real issue.
(e.g. Johannes contacted Mutable Instruments before putting some of the MI code in the firmware, similarly I recently contact Matthew on the Parasites code)
(b) might be difficult to be 100% , we can post in the forum, but its highly unlikely every contributor will respond, in fact Id think we will be lucky to get 50%... and we dont want to divert a huge effort into this. I dont think anyone wants johannes to have to drop other enhancements, and to start working on this... and Im not willing to put a huge amount of effort into this, as the future is clearer anyway.
finally, I apologise for this mess, if I had considered this when creating the community library, I could have made contribution require BSD agreement, and so avoided this debate
(a) or (b) ?