5 ms·

Note -- these scripts disallow commercial use in their default license, and this page is separate from the widely-used imagemagick library, which has a differen

Note -- these scripts disallow commercial use in their default license, and this page is separate from the widely-used imagemagick library, which has a different, more permissive (though also sui generis) license

umvi 5y ago
You can use them commercially if you pay for a license
- pilotneko 5y ago
  Very affordable too. I think we paid $100 for a perpetual license.
  - umvi 5y ago
    I miss the days of perpetual licenses! Everything is a subscription these days.
gkoberger 5y ago
Interesting. I've never thought of pre-built CLI commands as something that would be licensable. I'm not sure why; it's not particularly different than an NPM module or something, I suppose. I can't put my finger on it, but it feels super weird to me.
- smnrchrds 5y ago
  Because with a programming language, you can learn how something works and implement it yourself without copying the implementation. Your implementation will have a similar underlying algorithm but enough differences that it wouldn't be a copy. Algorithm (that is probably not copyrightable) and implementation (that is) are separate. You can use the implementation or you can learn the algorithm and implement it yourself. With CLI tools, however, there is only one way of doing most things. There is no OOP vs functional, no loop vs comprehension, no choice of data structure, nothing. So commands being copyrightable implies no one can do certain actions with the CLI without a license. Because the only way to do those actions are with the exact command that was copyrighted.
  - ithinkso 5y ago
    So that means once you do something in a CLI tool, and copyright it, it's game over for everyone else using said tool? I understand what you're saying but I'm not sure that tracks, technically you could argue that the tool's license also include every combination of parameters used since the authors implemented them But if a command language is turing complete, or some subset of it, then I guess there is more than one way of doing something and the copyright is a fair game, you can always reimplement it
    - skywal_l 5y ago
      > So that means once you do something in a CLI tool, and copyright it, it's game over for everyone else using said tool? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clean_room_design https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clean_room_design. Works in the case of copyright. Not patent though.
    - zaphirplane 5y ago
      Any one can add a licence file to anything, doesn’t mean it’s enforceable, right or moral
  - eesmith 5y ago
    > With CLI tools, however, there is only one way of doing most things. These aren't simple commands, but programs written in bash, with multiple ways to implement them, and thus clearly copyrightable.
  - matheusmoreira 5y ago
    But couldn't using the script to learning the algorithm and write a commercial version also be a type of commercial use? I think we can never be too sure of anything when it comes to this lawyer stuff.
  - jppittma 5y ago
    Patently wrong. Have you ever heard of the GNU operating system that avoided copywrite with a clean room rewrite of old unix tools? There's also the busybox coreutils on GPLv2 instead of v3.
- tonetheman 5y ago
  It is a silly license. And in no way enforceable. He is trying to license making a mandelbrot fractal... "reprogram them in another scripting language" Now that I have looked at his page I can never make another mandelbrot in Python again. I get what he is trying to stop but the language is silly.

umvi 5y ago

You can use them commercially if you pay for a license

pilotneko 5y ago
Very affordable too. I think we paid $100 for a perpetual license.
- umvi 5y ago
  I miss the days of perpetual licenses! Everything is a subscription these days.

gkoberger 5y ago

Interesting. I've never thought of pre-built CLI commands as something that would be licensable. I'm not sure why; it's not particularly different than an NPM module or something, I suppose. I can't put my finger on it, but it feels super weird to me.

smnrchrds 5y ago
Because with a programming language, you can learn how something works and implement it yourself without copying the implementation. Your implementation will have a similar underlying algorithm but enough differences that it wouldn't be a copy. Algorithm (that is probably not copyrightable) and implementation (that is) are separate. You can use the implementation or you can learn the algorithm and implement it yourself. With CLI tools, however, there is only one way of doing most things. There is no OOP vs functional, no loop vs comprehension, no choice of data structure, nothing. So commands being copyrightable implies no one can do certain actions with the CLI without a license. Because the only way to do those actions are with the exact command that was copyrighted.
- ithinkso 5y ago
  So that means once you do something in a CLI tool, and copyright it, it's game over for everyone else using said tool? I understand what you're saying but I'm not sure that tracks, technically you could argue that the tool's license also include every combination of parameters used since the authors implemented them But if a command language is turing complete, or some subset of it, then I guess there is more than one way of doing something and the copyright is a fair game, you can always reimplement it
  - skywal_l 5y ago
    > So that means once you do something in a CLI tool, and copyright it, it's game over for everyone else using said tool? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clean_room_design https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clean_room_design. Works in the case of copyright. Not patent though.
  - zaphirplane 5y ago
    Any one can add a licence file to anything, doesn’t mean it’s enforceable, right or moral
- eesmith 5y ago
  > With CLI tools, however, there is only one way of doing most things. These aren't simple commands, but programs written in bash, with multiple ways to implement them, and thus clearly copyrightable.
- matheusmoreira 5y ago
  But couldn't using the script to learning the algorithm and write a commercial version also be a type of commercial use? I think we can never be too sure of anything when it comes to this lawyer stuff.
- jppittma 5y ago
  Patently wrong. Have you ever heard of the GNU operating system that avoided copywrite with a clean room rewrite of old unix tools? There's also the busybox coreutils on GPLv2 instead of v3.
tonetheman 5y ago
It is a silly license. And in no way enforceable. He is trying to license making a mandelbrot fractal... "reprogram them in another scripting language" Now that I have looked at his page I can never make another mandelbrot in Python again. I get what he is trying to stop but the language is silly.