[cc-licenses] open source non commercial license

Dana Powers dana.powers at gmail.com
Mon Feb 5 16:50:16 EST 2007


I'm quite aware of the distinction.  But I don't think the wikipedia article
is clear _at all_ wrt beer/speech.  Moreover, I find the association of
"freedom" with "what the GPL provides" to be very misleading to people who
are not aware of the "freedoms" defined by the free software movement.  It
is also quite clear that using the GPL would reduce Emerson's "freedom" to
restrict commercial use.  Allow me to quote myself:

"Whether you think these restrictions make the GPL licensing system more
compatible with "freedom" is an entirely separate question. "

but I don't really want to debate what "freedom" should or should not be.  I
simply think that article may very confusing for people who don't already
understand the differences between BSD-stype and GPL-stype licensing.

dp

On 2/5/07, drew Roberts <zotz at 100jamz.com> wrote:
>
> On Monday 05 February 2007 01:36 pm, Dana Powers wrote:
> > "The GPL requires the software to always be free..."
> >
> > That's not true.
>
> Yes, it is true. You have fallen into the classic mistake with Free
> Software
> which is thinking that the word free refers to price (is gratis) whereas
> the
> word free actually refers to freedom (is libre) and if you go to the link
> you
> provided, you will see this is how it is used in context.
>
> "The main difference between the two licenses is that revised BSD licenses
> are
> permissive while the GPL is copyleft. The GPL requires the software to
> always
> be free, including derivative works, by requiring the software to always
> be
> licensed under the GPL. The BSD license only requires acknowledging the
> original authors, and imposes few restrictions on how the source code may
> be
> used. As a result, BSD code can be more easily integrated into or released
> entirely as proprietary software."
>
> Free BSD code can be used in a non-free program. The non-free (non-libre)
> program can be given away (gratis) or sold (non-gratis.)
>
> GPL code can only be used in other GPL programs. Thus the code is always
> free
> (libre) but it may be given away (gratis) or sold (non-gratis.) Actually
> with
> the GPL instead of selling, you may say that you charge for transferring,
> but
> it still amounts to non-gratis.
>
> all the best,
>
> drew
> --
> (da idea man)
> _______________________________________________
> cc-licenses mailing list
> cc-licenses at lists.ibiblio.org
> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-licenses
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/cc-licenses/attachments/20070205/2f8f45ff/attachment.htm 


More information about the cc-licenses mailing list