[cc-community] by-nd for software

Greg London email at greglondon.com
Mon Oct 22 09:00:50 EDT 2007


Well, I don't know what your application is, but
if you establish some website as the "approved"
version, and people associate that site with the
program, then you shouldn't have a problem.

Yeah, people might make derivatives, but everyone
will know that your site is the approved version
and will go there if the version they got from
some third party site goes all wonky.

The thing is that you have no idea who out there
is a master mechanic, who is a handyman who knows
what they're doing, and who is a tool with a tool.

And for me personally, I'm not going to pop the hood
on your car, learn it, understand it, debug it, and
try to fix or improve it, if I know that I can't
make that derivative available somehow, or if I know
I've got to submit my change for your approval.

Because if I found a bug and fixed it, why am I submitting
it to *you* for approval when you were the one who put
the bug in there in the first place?

In all the stuff I've written that's under a FLOSS license
of some kind, including perl modules on CPAN, a perl
training book, a book on copyright law (Bounty Hunters),
I've found the community is always helpful.

It's your project and you can choose whatever license
you want, it's just that I'm having a hard time understanding
how you can't trust the community for your particular
project.

Greg

> Thank you all for useful comments.
>
> No, this is not at all about any money-making scheme.
>
> it is only about the integrity. Based on our observations,
> the current model of "community maintained" software
> is in many instances just as inadequate as would be a
> public transit systems where the passengers are
> maintaining the buses. While this might be something
> that is beneficial to the system operator, the quality
> of the product deteriorates so quickly that the end-users
> learn not to trust the system: yes, some passengers will
> choose to travel with wrenches and screwdrivers, but
> hardly any of them are certified mechanics. I do not imply
> that there are absolutely no software products where such
> "passenger-mechanic" model would be applicable; I'm only
> stating that this is the case with ~this particular~ product.
> We might have to write our own license (one where no
> passenger is either required or allowed on the bus with a
> wrench), but we would prefer to use an existing, recognizable
> one if such exists: that would save those (especially those
> who want to use the software in a commercial product)
> "the hassle to study the yasl" ("yet-another-software-license").
> niknot
> _______________________________________________
> cc-community mailing list
> cc-community at lists.ibiblio.org
> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-community
>




More information about the cc-community mailing list