some questions about submitting scripts to the archive

sKy · Post by **sKy** » Sat Oct 20, 2007 11:48 am

I did read this two pages.
http://www.egghelp.org/cgi-bin/tcl_submit.tcl
http://www.egghelp.org/tcl_rejected.htm

There are still some things unkown for me, please answer.

Source code must be in human readable status (not obsfuated such as bytecode or without spaces/comments/newlines)?
Source code must be inside the script and the script may not be just a loader?
There must be license?
License must be osi approved?
The license may also be proprietary?

Post by **nml375** » Sat Oct 20, 2007 12:33 pm

Although Shayne being the manager of the archive, and thus being most appropriate answering those questions; based on the info on those two pages:

Source code must be in human readable status (not obsfuated such as bytecode or without spaces/comments/newlines)?
Can't see any reason why it would have to be, provided your script is not provided uner a license that requires it. Keep in mind that most kinds of obfuscations are very easily broken, and unless you use tclpro's bytecode compiler, will be fully readable within any tcl-interpreter. Expect ppl to be suspicious of your script, and what you might be hiding however.
Source code must be inside the script and the script may not be just a loader?
Same as above.
There must be license?
As an autor, you will always have the copyright of your work, unless explicitly waived. This means that anyone using your script will need a license in order to obtain and/or use a copy of it. If released into Public Domain (PD), a notice about waiving your copyright should be included instead.
License must be osi approved?
Legally, any license that permits egghelp.org to redistribute the script "as is" would do.
The license may also be proprietary?
Same as above.

However, these answers are solely my interpretation of the information of those two pages, in the end, it is all up to the manager of the archive to decide what meets the criterias to be published in the archive.

sKy · Post by **sKy** » Sat Oct 20, 2007 4:35 pm

I think there is a little misunderstanding.

nml375 wrote:[*]License must be osi approved?
Legally, any license that permits egghelp.org to redistribute the script "as is" would do.

Small addition, with osi approved I mean that the used license is approved from the opensource initiative - (http://www.opensource.org/licenses/alphabetical or the free software foundation - http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/).

I think if proprietary licenses are allowed, then the answer is licenses must not be osi approved. (osi approved means something like an important opensource initiative checked it and said "yes, it`s really free as in freedom")

For example, if it could be proprietary you could write in your license things like:
- "only for private use, for commercial use you have to buy a commercial license"
- "only 30 days free trial, then the script will stop working until you purchased a license" (aka shareware)
- "you may not use this for a bot lending service"

Post by **nml375** » Sat Oct 20, 2007 4:55 pm

That is what I assumed you were referring to.
As neither page says anything 'bout licensing, the least minimum would be a license that grants egghelp.org the right to redistribute the script "as is".
Obviously, a license that fulfills that does not neccesary have to be osi.

That said, wether there are any further requirements on licenses, would be up to the manager of the archive.

sKy · Post by **sKy** » Sat Oct 20, 2007 5:16 pm

(I forgot to add, the question is not only about the script archive, also about the website.)

Sometimes I just interpret more in something them it says in fact. (Reaon for that was that all scripts on this website/forum was free in general) That`s why I thought must be human readable & osi approved.

Ok, I hope slennox willas the owner of this website will add his comments here and have a final decision on that. It`s quite political.

Otherwise I come up in future with the first shareware script for eggdrop.

Post by **slennox** » Mon Oct 22, 2007 8:13 pm

The situation at the moment is that most scripts don't have a licence (let alone a copyright statement) and that leaves whatever implied permission exists by the owner's act of submitting their script to the archive. Some scripts have basic statements releasing them into the public domain and some larger scripts do have the GPL included. I'm sure there are a few scripts in there with silly "you're not allowed to change anything below" statements covering 20 lines of precious code

But I'm not sure if any with full blown proprietary licences have slipped through.

One case I recall of a "commercial" script is NerfBender's trivia, but having a look at that now, it appears the script in the archive is a demo with no real restrictions, and the paid version is a separate thing you buy direct from the author. I don't have a problem with that model, or anyone submitting a script that is under the GPL and for which they request a fee be paid by people who use the script. But anything that obviously bears the hallmarks of proprietary software such as obfuscated code or time-limited trial periods is unlikely to be added.

I see the fact that it hasn't been necessary to set rules/guidelines on this issue as a good thing.

Post by **nml375** » Tue Oct 23, 2007 10:10 am

I suppose those "Don't change below"-lines could be interpreted as instructions on how to avoid breaking the script, rather than "copyright notices".

Even so, in most countries, copyright is implicitly assigned to the author(s) unless explicitly waived, however releasing a script to be published could be considdered releasing it "free under fair-use". In the case where the author is not stated, one could only assume the poster is the author, or has the author's permission to do so.

And thnx for clearing things out, slennox, as I suppose you're best suited on saying what goes and what does not.