[Fusionforge-general] Plugin Compact Preview License

Sabri LABBENE sabri.labbene at gmail.com
Wed Aug 22 13:20:50 CEST 2012


Replying to the list !

On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 1:19 PM, Sabri LABBENE <sabri.labbene at gmail.com>wrote:

>
>
> On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 12:08 PM, Olivier Berger <
> olivier.berger at it-sudparis.eu> wrote:
>
>> Hi.
>>
>> Franck Villaume <franck.villaume at trivialdev.com> writes:
>>
>> > Hi all,
>> >
>> > I was taking a look at the compact preview plugin. One todo makes me
>> > wonder that we need to clear the situation :
>> >
>> > // This is heavily inspired by code presented in
>> > http://rndnext.blogspot.com/2009/02/jquery-ajax-tooltip.html from Caleb
>> > Tucker
>> > // TODO : verify license
>> > // TODO : use the improved version with hoverIntent plugin
>> > (http://cherne.net/brian/resources/jquery.hoverIntent.html) as
>> > documented in :
>> > http://rndnext.blogspot.com/2009/02/jquery-live-and-plugins.html
>> >
>> >
>> > What is the licence of this file oslcTooltip.js ?
>> >
>>
>>
> I think it should be the same as all the plugins we contributed in COCLICO
> project.
> There's no license mentions in the tutorial pages from which I borrowed
> the first version of the code.
> So We just left the links as TODOs since we care a lot about IP :)
>
>
>
>> I think we tried and get in touch with the initial author (at least I
>> insisted on that at the time), but don't have a record now, and Sabri
>> has left us, so...
>>
>> I tried again using twitter, as blogspot comments seems broken :
>> https://twitter.com/olberger/status/238210911184232449 . I hope he will
>> respond.
>>
>> Note that his code borrowed again from another code, etc.
>>
>> I guess much of JS posted in forums has the same problems.
>>
>>
> It's tutorials nearly all of the time, maybe authors don't consider that
> they have published
> real software that need to be protected by a license. Sometimes the final
> version of the code
> comes also by applying patches from the comments of the initial thread...
>
> IMPOV, we are free to decide on license :) keeping the link to the
> original tutorial page should
> not harm I think whatever the license is. Am I wrong ?
>
>
> Still, we have modified it a bit in several ways, as can be seen
>> in the attached diff.
>>
>> So I don't know... anyone else's opinion ?
>>
>> Maybe we can just relax the license in making it more BSD/MIT like, and
>> just change the TODO with a notice clarifying our "best efforts" so far ?
>>
>>
> Sounds good to me.
>
> Best regards,
> -- Sabri.
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.fusionforge.org/pipermail/fusionforge-general/attachments/20120822/bda73644/attachment.html>


More information about the Fusionforge-general mailing list