[cc-licenses] Restricting Derivative Works
teloscorbin at gmail.com
Mon Jun 26 16:07:22 EDT 2006
Your scheme violates three basic requirements
of the Open Source Definition.
: 3. Derived Works
: The license must allow modifications and derived works,
: and must allow them to be distributed under the same
: terms as the license of the original software.
private derivatives, and derivatives made off-wiki are not
allowed by your scheme.
: 8. License Must Not Be Specific to a Product
: The rights attached to the program must not depend
: on the program's being part of a particular software distribution.
: Rationale: This clause forecloses yet another class of license traps.
Your "product" here is "The One Wiki".
And the rationale on the OSD site for disallowing this
is clear: this sort of scheme is a *license trap*.
Phil only allows modifications as long as they remain
part of a particular distribution: his.
This is a clear license TRAP.
: 10. License Must Be Technology-Neutral
: No provision of the license may be predicated on
: any individual technology or style of interface.
Your scheme of "The One Wiki" violates this principle
directly. The scheme is technology specific, requiring
all modifications through a particular website, through
some particular software that Phil chooses. The software
may change, but it is specific to whatever the site is
using at the time.
The community may differ as to whether to call
OSD compliant licenses "Free" or "Open Source"
or "Shared" or whatever, but I think the community
agrees that this is a minimum set of requirements
to satisfy the community's standards. Your scheme
directly violates three of the ten minimums.
And even if you meet all ten, any scheme could get
rejected because of additional bolt-ons that may not
violate the minimum requirements but have too much
overhead and would be rejected by the community.
And I say your scheme has overhead to it.
I understand what you're saying, I get how you want
it to operate. You don't need to explain the scheme to
me any further. I get it. And I reject that it is Free,
Libre, Open, or Shared.
More information about the cc-licenses