Documentation, FAQs & Guidelines on Licensing, Attribution, and Usage in p5.js

[meezwhite]

Increasing access

By clarifying how p5.js can be used in various contexts (from a legal standpoint), p5.js users (artists, educators, developers, etc.) could feel more confident and liberated in choosing p5.js for their work.

Which types of changes would be made?

• Unsure (The community can help to determine the type of change.)

Most appropriate sub-area of p5.js?

• Other (Documentation, Legal)

What's the problem?

1. Users can face difficulty navigating the complexities of the LGPL, which may undermine confidence in using p5.js in different contexts.
2. The diverse applications of p5.js can inadvertently lead to unintentional violations of certain LGPL clauses. For certain use-cases, limitations imposed by LGPL are unclear.
3. Regarding development: it can be unclear how p5.js code can be used in other projects, which LGPL requirements apply, and what constitutes in "derivative work."

What's the solution?

• A new document should be created outlining FAQs and guidelines on licensing and usage. It should specifically address common questions and concerns surrounding p5.js and its LGPL-2.1 license. It should provide guidelines for common use cases (e.g. for artists) on proper usage and attribution. It should provide guidelines for when developing with p5.js (derivative work or linking).
• The document could be a Wiki page as part of the p5.js repository and/or a page on the p5.js website.
• The document should be referenced in the README file.

Alternative solution

• [p5.js 2.0 RFC Proposal]: Transitioning to a simpler, less complex License #6801

Pros (updated based on community comments)

• Increased Confidence: Clear guidelines and FAQs would boost users' confidence in utilizing p5.js across diverse projects.
• Enhanced Accessibility: Simplifying LGPL complexities would make p5.js more accessible to a wider range of users (artists, educators, developers, etc.)
• Legal Compliance: Users would have a better understanding of their obligations under the LGPL, reducing the risk of unintentional violations.

Cons (updated based on community comments)

• Resource Allocation: Creating and maintaining such a document may require significant time and effort from the p5.js community, diverting resources from other (potentially more important) tasks.
• Misinterpretation: Despite efforts to clarify licensing and usage guidelines, there's a possibility of misinterpretation the LGPL, leading to false guidelines and answers or even more questions/discussions.

Proposal status

Under review

[ksen0]

We are actively working on this within the PF team, not only on clarifying license usage, but also the attribution model across the p5.js project and website. Other license and attribution discussions include: processing/p5.js-website#415 and processing/p5.js-website#681.

Please feel free to weigh inhere or on the other issues; I will will post updates on progress as well!

(I'm keeping the 2.0 tag but really this applies across the board, to 1.x as well as to the website.)

PS: This message is part of cleaning up the p5.js 2.0 roadmap prior to release, to make outstanding more more approachable for new contributors. You can join the conversation about this new version on this Discourse thread or this GitHub thread!