Page 2 of 2

Posted: Sun Jan 10, 2010 10:35 am
by Zbond-Zbond
Oh, yes, I see .. .. my only concern is that any bits (of code) I've copied (i.e. a planetinfo.plist which I've used as a sort of template but which has most elements deleted and 32 all new objects - "moons" - defined) does not infringe any current licence/wishes/whatever

I don't care what anyone does with my KBO's

Posted: Sun Jan 10, 2010 10:41 am
by Thargoid
Zbond-Zbond wrote:Oh, yes, I see .. .. my only concern is that any bits (of code) I've copied (i.e. a planetinfo.plist which I've used as a sort of template but which has most elements deleted and 32 all new objects - "moons" - defined) does not infringe any current licence/wishes/whatever

I don't care what anyone does with my KBO's
If you're just using it as a template (as in this entry goes here, that goes there, this needs also to be in to work etc) then that shouldn't be a problem at all (as in essence you're indirectly deriving your work from the wiki for example).

It's only when you start reproducing exact copies of code, or significant and recognisable functions of it that you need to start considering things.

Posted: Mon Jan 11, 2010 1:09 am
by Zbond-Zbond
OK that sounds alright.

I take it, then, that there is no code that i can't see, containing stuff written by someone else, that I'd be failing to acknowledge.

Thanks.

Posted: Mon Jan 11, 2010 6:46 am
by Commander McLane
And, by the way: as long as you are re-using code from Oolite itself (either Obj-C code from the, well, code; or XML/OpenStep/JS code from the contained (in Oolite.app/Resources/) plists and scripts), you're perfectly fine, because that's what Oolite's licence is all about: allowing you to re-use its code partly or in its entirety. The only thing you have to do is to distribute the resulting work under the same terms.

Note: as a general rule this is only valid for everything that lives within Oolite.app. OXPs may be distributed under differing licences, so if you want to re-use something from another person's OXP, you have to follow the licence terms of the OXP in question.

Posted: Fri Jan 15, 2010 3:33 am
by Zbond-Zbond
So if I put the following statement:

This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike 3.0 Unported License. To view a copy of this license, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/3.0/ or send a letter to Creative Commons, 171 Second Street, Suite 300, San Francisco, California, 94105, USA.

(which I've just copied from Ahruman's post 25.11.2009 topic: "Licensing OXP's - Discussion")

....in my ReadMe folder, then that will do?

Posted: Fri Jan 15, 2010 9:12 am
by Kaks
Yep.

Re: Licensing OXPs

Posted: Tue Aug 28, 2012 7:18 am
by Smivs
I just found this article via Slashdot which proposes that Creative Commons drop the non-commercial and non-derivative elements of the Licences for the proposed CC4 licence.
Just thought it might be of interest.

Re: Licensing OXPs

Posted: Sat Nov 09, 2013 5:49 pm
by Arexack_Heretic
What happened to the CC sharealike licence?
Where all derative work can only be released under the same licence?

Sorry, I don't intend to read all the legalese in earlier posts. :oops:

Re: Licensing OXPs

Posted: Sat Nov 09, 2013 6:24 pm
by Commander McLane
Arexack_Heretic wrote:What happened to the CC sharealike licence?
Where all derative work can only be released under the same licence?
Nothing. It's still there.
Arexack_Heretic wrote:Sorry, I don't intend to read all the legalese in earlier posts.
You only need to read the legalese on the CC website. And you don't even need to read the legalese, only the icons. :wink:

Re: Licensing OXPs

Posted: Thu Jul 31, 2014 12:58 pm
by tinker
It is possible that Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International (CC BY-SA 4.0) is a better option now, it has better International coverage than 3.0 http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

Re: Licensing OXPs

Posted: Thu Jul 31, 2014 3:18 pm
by Smivs
Yes, you are correct. This has been mentioned here recently, and I notice some authors are already moving over to 4. I expect to do the same as I update my portfolio.

Re: Licensing OXPs

Posted: Mon Aug 25, 2014 12:08 pm
by Lone_Wolf
I am considering switching from 'CC by-nc-sa 3.0' to 'CC by-sa 4' .

For oxps i started , like shieldcycler , i am the original copyright holder, so re-licensing it should be ok.

However, i also maintain oxps started by other people, like the ettBeaconlauncher .

The original author put it under 'CC by-nc-sa 3.0' , and the "CC by-sa 4.0" misses the NC part.
Do you people think re-licensing this way is allowed ?

Re: Licensing OXPs

Posted: Mon Aug 25, 2014 12:36 pm
by cim
Re-licensing your own OXPs is fine in general [1], though anyone who has a copy under the old CC license can continue to use that license for that copy.

https://creativecommons.org/compatiblelicenses says that moves which take out (or add) the NC part aren't allowed if SA is in, but you can increase the version number. So you could move them from CC BY-NC-SA 3 to CC BY-NC-SA 4, but not to CC BY-SA 4 (unless the original author agreed to re-license, of course)

[1] Assuming in this case you've not incorporated anyone else's work into it since you created it, which makes things a bit more complicated.

Re: Licensing OXPs

Posted: Tue Aug 26, 2014 11:18 am
by Lone_Wolf
Thank you for the answer cim, that makes the situation much clearer.