My question is about the closing of the post
Should the code of my app that include libraries under LaTeX Project Public License 1.3c have to be public?
I have encountered and answered on this site many posts relating to copyright, licenses, Windows versions and licenses, Linux licenses, open-source licenses, serial keys, and so on. The above post seemed to me to be similar and possible to answer from my personal knowledge and experience. This very general question received from me a very general answer, then was closed.
My question is whether software licensing issues, of which there are possibly hundreds of posts on SU, are now off-topic? Or how do we distinguish between those that are on and off topic?
My own view is that as long as we don't pretend to analyze any laws and only talk generalities, then software licensing should be a permitted subject in our non-legal site.
I would like to know what you others think and perhaps we can arrive at some sort of consensus or guidelines for the future.
To the users who went and downvoted my answer on the closed post:
What's the point in doing that? You are just subverting the spirit of Meta, where, according to my understanding, discussion is the chief purpose.
To the moderators who answered:
Thank you for your efforts. I understand your motivation in keeping legal advice off-subject. However, licensing is an indivisible part of software. Software distribution couldn't exist without copyright and licensing. The subject of software licensing is often discussed on our site and is on-subject. It goes without saying that software licenses, open-source or closed, are further modified by local legislation which should remain off-subject.
This post was mostly intended to discuss and come up with some rules for defining where the subject of licensing ends, or where it becomes off-subject. I hope that in the future this will be better defined (if at all possible).