[cc-community] by-nd for software

jonathon jonathon.blake at gmail.com
Mon Oct 22 12:19:57 EDT 2007


NikNik wrote:

> it is only about the integrity.

No license can protect the integrity of the product.

> Based on our observations, the current model of "community maintained"

I'm guessing that this is based upon the support, and code level of
projects in Sourceforge.

As there is no comparable data for proprietary projects, there is no
way to determine whether or not the quality of the  code is better
then, the same as, or worse than that at Sourceforge.

In terms of customer service, you can find the entire spectrum for
both FLOSS and non-FLOSS projects.

In terms of customer service via community support, the larger the
project the more useful it is to new users.  My sense is that the
FLOSS projects tend to provide better community support c/s than
non-FLOSS projects.

> stating that this is the case with ~this particular~ product.

Without knowing what your specific product is, I can't point to
counter-examples.

With software, a program can follow one of the following:
* Fills a niche and remains there in perpetuity;
* Fills a niche, but is replaced by a program that has more
"favorable" terms for the user;
* Fills a niche, and takes over the market;
* Fills a niche, and expands using illegal tactics and methods, then
retains dominance using illegal tactics and methods;

Most software is going to remain in the "fills a niche and remains
there in perpetuity" category.

Back in the late seventies, the claim was that "off the shelf"
software would never be viable for businesses, because they have
specialized needs and requirements.
Most business software was custom written from scratch.

The theoretical claim was that off-the-shelf software would never have
the quality of code that a custom written application has.
Furthermore, custom code would preserve an integrity that will never
be present in off-the-shelf software.

Currently, most businesses customize software by gluing different
off-the-shelf programs together, writing patches to do that which the
off-the-shelf software can't do.  If the software can't be customized
by writing software patches, or using an internal macro language,
businesses won't use the program.  Home users will only such programs
when they have been "convinced" that there are no alternative programs
that do provide such functionality.
(The effort required to "convince" a user depends upon their
technological sophistication.  Technopheasants believe anything that
sounds plausible, if they paid a lot of money for products from that
company.   Technopheasants don't believe anything from organizations
whose products are distributed gratis, on the grounds that gratis
means bad quality --- even when objective third party evidence
indicates that the gratis product is superior in every measurable
aspect. )

> We might have to write our own license (one where no

If I understand your points correctly, you want a license with the
following points:

* Anybody can re-distribute the source code in unmodified form;
* The library can be used or distributed with any product;
* Source code must be included whenever it is distributed;
* Nobody is allowed to modify the code;
* The only version that may be distributed is the one found at the home site;

For that, you'll have to pay a lawyer to write a license for you.

> who want to use the software in a commercial product)

If you want to prohibit "code rewriting", the  you are also
prohibiting the reuse of your software in other products, regardless
of whether or not those products are commercial in orientation.

> "the hassle to study the yasl" ("yet-another-software-license").

Very few companies can afford the luxury of using more than two
different licenses.  Linux distributions put up with it, simply
because they are assemblers, not originators.

xan

jonathon


More information about the cc-community mailing list