5 ms·

The Kingsway Basic License

32 points by feross 5y ago

andybak 5y ago
I know this isn't a software licence but this topic has been on my mind recently. One problem that hits software using "novel" licences (and in some cases copyleft licences) is that software is multilayered and libraries use libraries that use libraries. If I want to open source my stuff - or use a novel semi-OSS licence and I've picked a different flavour to you then I usually can't touch your stuff. Most non-copyleft licences are broadly compatible leading to a big ecosystem. Once you move off that beaten track things get tricky. I've got less experience of this situation with non-software licences and I suspect it's less of an issue due to less "layering" but I do tend to reuse assets between projects over time and the thought of keeping track of every obscure restriction in every asset has a chilling effect. People - unless you have very strong reasons not to, consider sticking to widely used licences, and ones as liberal in their terms as you can tolerate.
- kwhitefoot 5y ago
  This isn't a software licence.
  - andybak 5y ago
    Yes. I am aware of that. I will clarify that in my comment
  - JoshTriplett 5y ago
    Creative works often combine material from different sources. There's substantial value in different ecosystems still using compatible licenses.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- kemitchell 5y ago
  GPL was really aggressive from the start. Being "GPL compatible" doesn't really mean "compatible" so much as "gives GPL its way". That became an issue even as we saw more GPL variants, like AGPL. When GPLv3 failed to add network copyleft, GPLv3 and AGPLv3 ended up with awkward, matching compatibility provisions built in, so they wouldn't be incompatible with each other. Non-FSF copyleft licenses, like MPLv2 and now EPLv2, try to reduce the resulting pain by including "yields to GPL" clauses. More recent licenses like [Parity](https://paritylicense.com/versions/7.0.0 https://paritylicense.com/versions/7.0.0) head off many problems by allowing more flexibility on terms, while still requiring release. I'm all for considering all options when it comes to software licensing. But both business models and social causes are tightly coupled to choice of license terms. Telling people to just give their stuff away under permissive terms is in fact telling a lot of people not to worry about money or "software freedom".
amelius 5y ago
Surprised they didn't make the connection with font licensing.
- kemitchell 5y ago
  My audience is mostly software people! There are tons of interesting parallels in type design, though that’s a much smaller practice community.
pgeorgi 5y ago
> I gather Kingsway is relying mostly on its artists’ reputation for being willing to license for sampling on reasonable terms. I don’t see any guarantee that samples will be licensed, much less on any particular terms. There have been instances when artists disagreed with the use of their work, and they're kinda sensitive to that. For example some artists try to steer clear from politics, and so for example the Rolling Stones requested Angela Merkel's election campaign to not use "Angie" (whatever they were thinking when deciding to use that song in the first place given the lyrics, but that's a different topic :-) ) There are other situations in sampling and other forms of creative reuse where artists prefer to have the final say who gets to reuse their work and in which context, and such a setup is quite suitable for that. The software equivalent might be various "ethical licenses" (https://ethicalsource.dev/licenses/ https://ethicalsource.dev/licenses/) ranging from "Don't use the software to build missiles" to "The only corporate structure that may use this code is cooperatives", although they often predefine the terms instead of falling back to "call us and we'll see."
- kemitchell 5y ago
  I'm not sure this is the case with Kingsway. The license people get for personal projects does not include any kind of clawback. The customer can sample in qualifying projects without any further conversation. Moreover, the packs on Kingsway are meant for sampling. That's why they're published and sold. The declining credit section of the Code Credit License I've worked on addresses the general theme directly: https://codecreditlicense.com/license/1.1.0#declining-credit https://codecreditlicense.com/license/1.1.0#declining-credit
amelius 5y ago
By the way, my browser gave a "Warning: Potential Security Risk Ahead" upon visiting that link pointing to the kingsway website.
- reilly3000 5y ago
  The article linked without the www subdomain and the don’t have a cert or redirect on non-www. This should work: https://www.kingswaymusiclibrary.com/ https://www.kingswaymusiclibrary.com/
- kemitchell 5y ago
  Thanks. I updated the links.

32 points by feross 5y ago

I know this isn't a software licence but this topic has been on my mind recently. One problem that hits software using "novel" licences (and in some cases copyleft licences) is that software is multilayered and libraries use libraries that use libraries. If I want to open source my stuff - or use a novel semi-OSS licence and I've picked a different flavour to you then I usually can't touch your stuff. Most non-copyleft licences are broadly compatible leading to a big ecosystem. Once you move off that beaten track things get tricky. I've got less experience of this situation with non-software licences and I suspect it's less of an issue due to less "layering" but I do tend to reuse assets between projects over time and the thought of keeping track of every obscure restriction in every asset has a chilling effect. People - unless you have very strong reasons not to, consider sticking to widely used licences, and ones as liberal in their terms as you can tolerate.

kwhitefoot 5y ago
This isn't a software licence.
- andybak 5y ago
  Yes. I am aware of that. I will clarify that in my comment
- JoshTriplett 5y ago
  Creative works often combine material from different sources. There's substantial value in different ecosystems still using compatible licenses.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
kemitchell 5y ago
GPL was really aggressive from the start. Being "GPL compatible" doesn't really mean "compatible" so much as "gives GPL its way". That became an issue even as we saw more GPL variants, like AGPL. When GPLv3 failed to add network copyleft, GPLv3 and AGPLv3 ended up with awkward, matching compatibility provisions built in, so they wouldn't be incompatible with each other. Non-FSF copyleft licenses, like MPLv2 and now EPLv2, try to reduce the resulting pain by including "yields to GPL" clauses. More recent licenses like [Parity](https://paritylicense.com/versions/7.0.0 https://paritylicense.com/versions/7.0.0) head off many problems by allowing more flexibility on terms, while still requiring release. I'm all for considering all options when it comes to software licensing. But both business models and social causes are tightly coupled to choice of license terms. Telling people to just give their stuff away under permissive terms is in fact telling a lot of people not to worry about money or "software freedom".

amelius 5y ago

Surprised they didn't make the connection with font licensing.

kemitchell 5y ago
My audience is mostly software people! There are tons of interesting parallels in type design, though that’s a much smaller practice community.

pgeorgi 5y ago

> I gather Kingsway is relying mostly on its artists’ reputation for being willing to license for sampling on reasonable terms. I don’t see any guarantee that samples will be licensed, much less on any particular terms. There have been instances when artists disagreed with the use of their work, and they're kinda sensitive to that. For example some artists try to steer clear from politics, and so for example the Rolling Stones requested Angela Merkel's election campaign to not use "Angie" (whatever they were thinking when deciding to use that song in the first place given the lyrics, but that's a different topic :-) ) There are other situations in sampling and other forms of creative reuse where artists prefer to have the final say who gets to reuse their work and in which context, and such a setup is quite suitable for that. The software equivalent might be various "ethical licenses" (https://ethicalsource.dev/licenses/ https://ethicalsource.dev/licenses/) ranging from "Don't use the software to build missiles" to "The only corporate structure that may use this code is cooperatives", although they often predefine the terms instead of falling back to "call us and we'll see."

kemitchell 5y ago
I'm not sure this is the case with Kingsway. The license people get for personal projects does not include any kind of clawback. The customer can sample in qualifying projects without any further conversation. Moreover, the packs on Kingsway are meant for sampling. That's why they're published and sold. The declining credit section of the Code Credit License I've worked on addresses the general theme directly: https://codecreditlicense.com/license/1.1.0#declining-credit https://codecreditlicense.com/license/1.1.0#declining-credit

amelius 5y ago

By the way, my browser gave a "Warning: Potential Security Risk Ahead" upon visiting that link pointing to the kingsway website.

reilly3000 5y ago
The article linked without the www subdomain and the don’t have a cert or redirect on non-www. This should work: https://www.kingswaymusiclibrary.com/ https://www.kingswaymusiclibrary.com/
kemitchell 5y ago
Thanks. I updated the links.