[cc-licenses] open source non commercial license
zotz at 100jamz.com
Mon Feb 5 16:20:04 EST 2007
On Monday 05 February 2007 02:30 pm, Emerson Clarke wrote:
> > > Thanks, i was actually looking at the microsoft licenses this morning.
> > > But as you suggested, they do not go down well with the open source
> > > community.
> > The problem with the Microsoft licenses is not that they come from
> > Microsoft. It's that Microsoft has not submitted the licenses to the
> > Open Source Initiative's license approval process, so they have not be
> > discussed, so they cannot be approved by the OSI board, and therefore
> > they are not OSI-approved licenses. If and when Microsoft submits a
> > license to the process, they will get the same fair hearing that any
> > other submission would receive, and the invitation to do so remains
> > open. Until then, the open source community (or at least this open
> > source community member) will take a wait-and-see approach.
> Ok, thats interesting.
> I guess there are no existing similarly constructed shared source
> licences then ?
> Do you think that such a shared source license which forced its
> licensing restrictions to be upheld in derivative works like the GPL
> does would be doomed from the outset though.
> If one of my goals is to have adoption in the open source community
> then i may as well confront the issue. In your opinion, are open
> source licenses at such a point where developers face a "use license
> X, or sink" situation,
There is resistance to license proliferation, but Mozilla made a new one. It
would also depend some on how great/needed the code itself is.
> and is there no way to weave in a new style of
> license with a new definition of non commercial ?
My take is that the non-commercial part will not fly as open source. Confront
the issue and make a decision.
all the best,
(da idea man)
More information about the cc-licenses