[cc-community] by-nd for software

NikNot niknot at gmail.com
Tue Oct 23 03:30:14 EDT 2007


On 10/23/07, drew Roberts <zotz at 100jamz.com> wrote:
>
> So, what are your thoughts on the GPL+Trademark solution. I have seen no
> response to that idea and I think it fits your stated needs very well.

Thanks for an interesting suggestion.

In practice, the mere letters 'GPL' are a red flag to commercial
software vendors and they generally stay away from anything
so labeled. It would be naive of us to think we can change this
behavior. To us, commercial software vendors are important
and we would like them to feel comfortable using the product.
On the other hand, establishing, promoting (and then defending)
a trademark puts additional burden on our resources.

>From what we have learned so far (and this discussion was a
part of it - thanks all) we are leaning towards a slightly
re-worded (i.e., excluding the right to modify the source) BSD
license. This solution has only one drawback: it's YASL. But if,
as a comment, we explain that this is really only BSD license
less the re-distribution of derivatives, (something that the
commercial software vendors are not likely to be interested in)
we think they might accept it.

niknot

p.s. One of the primary reasons why we have opted for a
"high-integrity" distribution model is that the source includes
a high degree of application domain knowledge and could
be harmed by interventions by otherwise competent
programmers who lack the appropriate level of expertize in
the application domain. I offer this as an explanation, not
justification. With that, I will not discuss further *why* we
have opted for a particular distribution model, since I
believe it would be an inappropriate waste of the list
bandwidth.


More information about the cc-community mailing list