Chris B wrote:
> This seems mostly consistent with the clause in the CC Attribution 
> Share-Alike license that "lets others remix, tweak, and build upon your work 
> even for commercial reasons, as long as they credit you and license their 
> new creations under the identical terms."
> I assume this would mean they could modify your include with the same 
> license on that include, but potentially a different license on other pieces 
> of their own work that they distribute it with. I don't think this would 
> stop them selling their work, which could include your work.
> 
>> I also think the library as a whole should encourage giving credit to
>> the include and the author of the piece that is used, but I don't think
>> it needs to be a term in the license. It might be easier to use an
>> established license, but most of them enforce some display of copyright
>> being kept with the include file.
>>
> 
> The CC Attribution Share-Alike seems to cover that where they say they 
> should 'credit you'

I believe it says they *must* credit you. There is a difference between 
"should" and "must".

I'd be wary of forcing people to give credit. I'd say people should be 
strongly encouraged to give credit but not legally obliged to.

Sometimes people genuinely forget where they originally got code from 
especially if they've heavily hacked it. Also it would get very long 
winded and tedious having to give credit for every author of every item 
in a busy scene if each item was taken from the proposed library and 
each item had been repeatedly modified by different people.

Ideally people should give credit yes, it's disrespectful to the 
original author not to, but I'd not want to force hobbyist POV hackers 
to have to keep track of the provenance of every single line of code.

I'm not at all sure how you'd find, or write, a license that strongly 
encourages people to give credit for any significant contributions 
without forcing acknowledgment of everyone who's ever touched even a 
single line of code of the least significant object.

Sorry not a very helpful post - it seems rather negative, but I do 
really like the idea of an object repository and somehow making it *the* 
official repository. I also agree it would need a common licence.

Post a reply to this message