[cc-licenses] Does BY-SA do what I think it does?
hancock at anansispaceworks.com
Tue Jun 6 23:08:51 EDT 2006
Cameron McCormack wrote:
> 2.0 licence.
Okay, that was your first mistake. ;-)
Can I interest you in a better license for software?
> Someone asked if they could use this library in a
> commercial setting, and were worried about the SA part of it. This
> person thinks that if other, commercial, code uses this library, even
> in an unmodified form, that this constitutes a “Derivative Work” and
> as such must also be licensed under CC-BY-SA. That is not how I
> interpreted the text of the license when I chose it, and wasn’t my
> intention. Could someone please clarify this for me?
Clarity is difficult, as the CC-By-SA was not intended for any kind
of programs, and certainly not for libraries. However, lacking any
further clarification, I would have to say that the copyleft in the
CC-By-SA would indeed apply in that situation.
It certainly applies if you use the GNU GPL.
Your stated intent tells me you would be much happier with the
"GNU Lesser General Public License" (LGPL), which is fairly standard
for the type of application you describe. It applies copyleft protection
to the library itself, while not affected software that merely links to
(Despite FSF attempts to dissuade you from using LGPL, it is actually
a VERY popular license for libraries -- for precisely the reason you
Terry Hancock (hancock at AnansiSpaceworks.com)
Anansi Spaceworks http://www.AnansiSpaceworks.com
More information about the cc-licenses