[cc-community] NC license for software
bollocsnutsack at yahoo.co.uk
Mon Jan 10 12:49:33 EST 2011
Thanks all for your suggestions.
> Another path is to release the code with the "This code may be used under
> the GPL after [date]" right from the start, but that also means a year
> from now if you decide you don't want to GPL it you can't go back.
This is a great idea. Will do this.
Although because the software is written in Python (an interpreted language), I don't see why cc-by-nc can't work.
>The general concept has been done before with software, most famously by Aladdin (GPL releases one version behind, which worked out to be about a year delay). You can see the license they used for the commercial restriction period athttp://www.artifex.com/downloads/doc/Public.htm
Having scanned this license, it seems that it only prevents resale and not usage in commercial environments?
As I see it, this is an acceptable compromise to secure resources and make the software better. Because it will be released under GPL, then it will indirectly benefit the community rather than myself working on it in my spare time.
--- On Mon, 10/1/11, Mike Linksvayer <ml at creativecommons.org> wrote:
From: Mike Linksvayer <ml at creativecommons.org>
Subject: Re: [cc-community] NC license for software
To: cc-community at lists.ibiblio.org
Date: Monday, 10 January, 2011, 16:00
On Sun, Jan 9, 2011 at 10:09 PM, Skjddsjkkj Kjdsjksdkjsd <bollocsnutsack at yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
I'm the copyright
holder of a piece of gaming server software which an investor has expressed interest in using on a site of theirs. As a precondition, they wish to be the sole competitor in the market for a period of time until the software is placed under the GPL.
Now I think it'd be nice to have the source-code available, and their only wish is the NC
clause (they're cool with the source-code being open). At first glance cc-by-nc looks ideal.
- cc-by-nc for 1 year. Grant them usage of the software.
- After 1 year, full release under the GNU GPL.
But CC expressively advises *against* licensing software under it. However it's the most ideal license I've found so far. Any suggestions? The source code is written in Python, and there's no binary- only plaintext source
The general concept has been done before with software, most famously by Aladdin (GPL releases one version behind, which worked out to be about a year delay). You can see the license they used for the commercial restriction period at http://www.artifex.com/downloads/doc/Public.htm
Several years ago they switched to going straight to GPL for current releases. I mentioned this at http://gondwanaland.com/mlog/2006/06/07/ghostscript-free-now/ from where you should be able to find other links and/or right keywords to figure out details.
Another, or complementary option, to limit the nature of competition, since you're talking about server software, is to release under the AGPL.
Using a CC BY-NC license not recommended for software seems unnecessary given there are well tested alternatives used for software.
-----Inline Attachment Follows-----
cc-community mailing list
cc-community at lists.ibiblio.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the cc-community