Richard;
What would be the penalty for using the code without modification? And
> how would you police it?
>
>
Yes. Those are uncomfortable questions, I'm not at all into penalties or
policing. Fortunately for me (with regard to answering the question) that'd
be the same as with the GPL or a CC licence; it'd be up to local copyright
laws with their respective agencies and attached punishments. I'm not very
happy with the state of copyright law.
What I'm hinting at is that the whole structure of the typical Open Source
process (Git privileges, packages in distributions, licences) seems aimed at
encouraging behaviour towards together creating stable and useful stuff.
That's great, don't get me wrong. In the meantime TOPLAP is very much about
opening the source (to the present audience) yet not so much at stability;
by the time a work is done the performance is more or less over. To me
livecoding isn't about the finished work as such, and passing on things in a
way that prevents them from being used as "finished" might be stimulating,
particularly in the context of example code for systems aimed at livecoding.
If your point is that it'd be inconsistent for me to try to encourage people
towards free experimentation in a way that is eventually based on the threat
of prison or fines then I'd have to agree. I suppose that it could be
written in a way that's legally useless yet tries to encourage certain
behaviour. I suspect that this was;
http://www.opensource.org/licenses/artistic-license-1.0 that was deemed
unenforcible, I wouldn't be surprised if that were partially on purpose.
Then again; I'm fine with starting out with a wildly impractical idea and
seeing where it might end up :¬).
Yours,
Kas.
Received on Fri Oct 28 2011 - 23:24:10 BST