LICENSE-ing issues

[franz-josef-kaiser]

Seriously guys, you need to figure out what license really applies. You got a gross mix of each and everything:

• GPL v2
• MIT
• Apache license 2.0
• Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported (CC BY 3.0)
• ...and then there're split licenses

Please sort that out before proceeding further and clarify which part of your software inherits which license and how the demo and the commercial software may be used.

[stsilent]

Yeah, probably the license not quite clear right now =\
Currently working on it.

[stsilent]

Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0)
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/deed.en_US

gh-page was updated. Thanks Kaiser.

[franz-josef-kaiser]

np. Cool that you acted that quick on that.

I'm by no means a lawyer (not even near that), but from what I can read in the "CC BY 4.0", it can get quite problematic:

Attribution — You must give appropriate*) credit, provide a link to the license, and indicate if changes were made. You may do so in any reasonable manner, but not in any way that suggests the licensor endorses you or your use.

*) you must provide the name of the creator and attribution parties

The last part (appears on click on the license page) is somehow odd. From what I can read, everyone using (i.e. building something with) this software would have to mention everyone from your side plus everyone who got an accepted pull request or added something to the base. For example, everybody would now have to mention me as you accepted the PR on the readme file and my name is provided in the GitHub issues. And that's really odd.

Next problem is that you licensed your "Flat UI" under the CC BY 3.0 license. When I look at the related wiki page then I can read the following:

Creative Commons changed the definition of "compatible license" to allow for more possibilities, including one-way compatibility. A discussion about criteria and processes for determining other compatible licenses will happen after the launch of 4.0. Additionally, a compatibility mechanism was added to BY-NC-SA. Compatibility was first introduced in version 3.0, although no licenses have yet been declared compatible.

Now "(...) no licenses have yet been declared compatible." is a real problem. That means that even if it is compatible, you can't use those two parts of software together ... yet. And that problem stands for all creative commons licensed things.

All above stuff can be avoided by using a license (for both affected parts: "StartUp" and "Flat UI") that is less restrictive, more compatible and allows to be "linked with code that uses a different license". Examples: MIT, PSFL. Please keep in mind that GPL v2 is incompatible with v3, so please avoid that one.

[ivanistheone]

Okay so let me see if I got this right, the general UI framework (the blocks mentioned in the video) will be commercial, but the blocks provided in this repo are CC by 4.0?

It would be cool if the whole framework were open source, but either way I like the idea very much. It is an interesting business model --- design+UI as a product ;) For design-illiterate devs (with an income), this could be an interesting option.