[cc-licenses] Unbundling the GPL
Joachim Durchholz
jo at durchholz.org
Thu Apr 26 14:01:38 EDT 2007
Terry Hancock schrieb:
> Joachim Durchholz wrote:
>> I don't see any problems with NC (Non Commercial). I think you mean ND -
>> No Derivatives.
>
> No, both are traps for free software authors:
>
> ND - use my code in anything new, I sue you
Right.
> NC - use my code in anything new, I extort you for money or I sue you anyway
No. "Use my code in anything new that you make money of and I'll sue you."
> (Oh yeah, and I can sue you just for using it unchanged, too!)
No. The CC license always implies the right to pass on.
(Or did I get that wrong?)
> At least if no source is provided, I have a strong hint that the
> software is non-free.
Please qualify what you mean by "free".
Either it's "freedoms", then even without source, you can have freedoms
(e.g. to pass it on).
Or it's "freedom", the state of being free, which is inapplicable to
software since it doesn't have consciousness.
Or it's the FSF's definition of "free", which is by definition not the
case if we use anything but the GPL, so there's no point in even trying
to be free in that sense.
> And why would you provide source for either? I have no economic
> incentive to contribute to your codebase either way.
I might get my patches applied in the next version of the software.
So I might get bugfixes and functional improvements earlier; that can be
enough of an incentive to contribute.
I'm pretty sure this motive is the sole one for most contributions from
commercial users, whether the project is GPL or not - the only
prerequisites are source availability and willingness to accept patches,
licensing is irrelevant if somebody already uses the code and wants it
fixed (and fixed once and for all, not reapplying the same patches for
every new version).
Regards,
Jo
More information about the cc-licenses
mailing list