[cc-community] by-nd for software

Greg London email at greglondon.com
Sun Oct 21 20:13:08 EDT 2007


NikNot <niknot at gmail.com> wrote:

>Why? To preserve the integrity of the product.
>
>If there is a malfunction (of any kind, security is not a likely
>problem in this case, but there might be other) the original
>code would be fixed, instead of forked "fixed derivatives"
>floating around.

If you license a work under something like GNU-GPL,
then any fix that anyone inserts into their code is
also a fix that you can insert into your code.

There is no patch forking with GNU-GPL.

The only forking you'll see with GNU-GPL is when
someone wants the program to do A and someone else
wants it to do B. i.e. KDE versus Gnome, and the like.
Or the many flavors of Linux itself.

Generally speaking, unless you're program is as
complex as a complete operating system, you shouldn't
have anything to worry about as far as patch forking
is concerned.

> But this is a tangent: it has already been
> decided that there must be *only one* version of the code,
> and we are looking for an appropriate licensing model that
> allows unrestricted use and code inspection, but strictly
> controls the integrity of the product.

Are you trying to enforce a way to make money somehow?
i.e. make the zero-dollar version available for everyone
to use, but not modify, and you sell the upgraded version
with new features?

If you are doing that, then make the zero-dollar version
licensed under something like CC-Non-Commercial, and
don't worry about derivatives.

Otherwise, if you are NOT doing this (reduced feature
version available for zero dollars, enhanced feature
version sold by you), then you need to reevaluate
exactly what it is you think you're giving the community
that it can only have one version.

Various groups have discussed potential Free Licenses that
would require all modifications be sent back to the original
author, or all modifications being "approved" by the
original author. And they have all been shot down as
NonFree. They are too restrictive for any sort of
community-based interaction.

If you really are interested in a Free license then
give up the notion of being the gatekeeper of the code.
Trust the community to support your code if it does
some useful functions. Use GNU-GPL.

If you are trying to create a money-making scheme
and want to maintain one version for zero dollars
but no one can modify it, and another verison with
added features, but only you can sell it, then you
need to give up using Free or FLOSS as a marketing
scheme to sell your product. Cause that aint Free.
Just use CC-NC or CC-NC-ND and make sure you don't
use Free or FLOSS in your advertising.

Greg




More information about the cc-community mailing list