Allow projects to be shared with different open source licenses

-stache-

bumpy

-stache-

…

BookOwl

Support, I love the MIT license, and would love to use it.

dude341

No support, this would be very, very, very confusing to people who are new to programming, and I would not feel comfortable with this being added because some people might be used to all projects being Creative Commons.
EDIT: Oh yeah, also, Scratch is about sharing, like Princess Panda_Test_ said.

Last edited by dude341 (Aug. 12, 2016 20:50:57)

TheMonsterOfTheDeep

dude341 wrote:
No support, this would be very, very, very confusing to people who are new to programming, and I would not feel comfortable with this being added because some people might be used to all projects being Creative Commons.
EDIT: Oh yeah, also, Scratch is about sharing, like Princess Panda_Test_ said.

…

I mean, I understand that licensing is complicated, but it could just be an optional thing (maybe when sharing, there could be a little box like “change license…”)

And it doesn't prevent sharing - all of these licenses are completely open-source, with some (looking at you, GPL) being aggressively copyleft - meaning that they basically force sharing.

themlblock

what on earth are licenses

1MatsuLover

themlblock wrote:
what on earth are licenses

Look it up. Easy.

IcyCoder

No support it will be confusing and I quote

Scratch Team wrote:
Why does the Scratch Team require that all projects be “remixable”?
We believe that viewing and remixing interesting projects is a great way to learn to program, and leads to cool new ideas. That’s why the source code is visible for every project shared to the Scratch website.
What if I don’t want others to remix my projects?
By publishing your project on the Scratch website, you agree to license it under a Creative Commons Share Alike license. If you don’t want others to view and remix your creations, don’t share them on the Scratch website.

TheMonsterOfTheDeep

@all:
This will NOT prevent remixing. All the licenses suggested are as free or more free than the licenses that Scratch projects are under now.

And instead of saying it will be “confusing” why don't we discuss how we could implement this without confusion? It would be really useful for people that want to license their projects in certain ways.

-stache-

IcyCoder wrote:
No support it will be confusing and I quote

Scratch Team wrote:
Why does the Scratch Team require that all projects be “remixable”?
We believe that viewing and remixing interesting projects is a great way to learn to program, and leads to cool new ideas. That’s why the source code is visible for every project shared to the Scratch website.
What if I don’t want others to remix my projects?
By publishing your project on the Scratch website, you agree to license it under a Creative Commons Share Alike license. If you don’t want others to view and remix your creations, don’t share them on the Scratch website.

Are you joking?

cheddargirl

I didn't go over all the licenses in complete detail, but a quick read shows most of the licenses you suggested are geared towards licensing software. The problem is that a Scratch project itself is not really software in itself, per se (as you would need the Scratch editor in order to use it), so the suggested licenses are probably not applicable here.

-stache-

cheddargirl wrote:
I didn't go over all the licenses in complete detail, but a quick read shows most of the licenses you suggested are geared towards licensing software. The problem is that a Scratch project itself is not really software in itself, per se (as you would need the Scratch editor in order to use it), so the suggested licenses are probably not applicable here.

Couldn't you say the same for something like a C project? I mean; it's nothing without a compiler… Or, more applicable, a JS project (because it's interpreted)?

cheddargirl

-stache- wrote:
cheddargirl wrote:
I didn't go over all the licenses in complete detail, but a quick read shows most of the licenses you suggested are geared towards licensing software. The problem is that a Scratch project itself is not really software in itself, per se (as you would need the Scratch editor in order to use it), so the suggested licenses are probably not applicable here.
Couldn't you say the same for something like a C project? I mean; it's nothing without a compiler… Or, more applicable, a JS project (because it's interpreted)?

You're thinking in the wrong direction. Adobe Photoshop, which is written in C++, is standalone; you don't need Microsoft Visual C++ to run the Adobe Photoshop software. A Scratch project is not standalone; you need the Scratch software to run a Scratch project.

A case where the suggested license might apply to a Scratch project would be is if the Scratch project was converted to a standalone executable. But that's outside the scope of the purpose of the Scratch website.

Last edited by cheddargirl (Aug. 13, 2016 03:33:58)

hjroh0315

We could say all of the licenses in all projects, is MIT or CC by SA 2.0. Since scratch is made by MIT it could be MIT

-stache-

cheddargirl wrote:
-stache- wrote:
cheddargirl wrote:
I didn't go over all the licenses in complete detail, but a quick read shows most of the licenses you suggested are geared towards licensing software. The problem is that a Scratch project itself is not really software in itself, per se (as you would need the Scratch editor in order to use it), so the suggested licenses are probably not applicable here.
Couldn't you say the same for something like a C project? I mean; it's nothing without a compiler… Or, more applicable, a JS project (because it's interpreted)?
You're thinking in the wrong direction. Adobe Photoshop, which is written in C++, is standalone; you don't need Microsoft Visual C++ to run the Adobe Photoshop software. A Scratch project is not standalone; you need the Scratch software to run a Scratch project.

A case where the suggested license might apply to a Scratch project would be is if the Scratch project was converted to a standalone executable. But that's outside the scope of the purpose of the Scratch website.

But no interpreted languages are standalone…

-stache-

BumpyMcBumpFace

BookOwl

cheddargirl wrote:
-stache- wrote:
cheddargirl wrote:
I didn't go over all the licenses in complete detail, but a quick read shows most of the licenses you suggested are geared towards licensing software. The problem is that a Scratch project itself is not really software in itself, per se (as you would need the Scratch editor in order to use it), so the suggested licenses are probably not applicable here.
Couldn't you say the same for something like a C project? I mean; it's nothing without a compiler… Or, more applicable, a JS project (because it's interpreted)?
You're thinking in the wrong direction. Adobe Photoshop, which is written in C++, is standalone; you don't need Microsoft Visual C++ to run the Adobe Photoshop software. A Scratch project is not standalone; you need the Scratch software to run a Scratch project.

A case where the suggested license might apply to a Scratch project would be is if the Scratch project was converted to a standalone executable. But that's outside the scope of the purpose of the Scratch website.

It doesn't have to “stand alone” before you can license it. These licenses apply to the source of the program. It doesn't matter if it's compiled or not. (If it did, that means you couldn't license Python or JS programs)

-stache-

Bump

cheddargirl

BookOwl wrote:
cheddargirl wrote:
-stache- wrote:
cheddargirl wrote:
I didn't go over all the licenses in complete detail, but a quick read shows most of the licenses you suggested are geared towards licensing software. The problem is that a Scratch project itself is not really software in itself, per se (as you would need the Scratch editor in order to use it), so the suggested licenses are probably not applicable here.
Couldn't you say the same for something like a C project? I mean; it's nothing without a compiler… Or, more applicable, a JS project (because it's interpreted)?
You're thinking in the wrong direction. Adobe Photoshop, which is written in C++, is standalone; you don't need Microsoft Visual C++ to run the Adobe Photoshop software. A Scratch project is not standalone; you need the Scratch software to run a Scratch project.

A case where the suggested license might apply to a Scratch project would be is if the Scratch project was converted to a standalone executable. But that's outside the scope of the purpose of the Scratch website.
It doesn't have to “stand alone” before you can license it. These licenses apply to the source of the program. It doesn't matter if it's compiled or not. (If it did, that means you couldn't license Python or JS programs)

But the suggested licenses in question would be geared towards the code of a software, which is crux of the issue. It would be hard to argue that a Scratch animation project file in itself is a software.

A CC license was chosen for Scratch project because a Scratch project file can be seen in multiple viewpoints (an animation, music video, art project, for example). It's what makes the CC license ideal. If the goal here is the option to have different licenses, then I would recommend that the options need to be non-software licenses, or the option to combine licenses (provided the license options are also in line with allowing remixing, that there is a short non-legalese version that is easy to read for the younger crowds, and will not cause legal problems for projects related to Scratch-based books down the road, of course).

-stache-

bump

Discuss Scratch