[cc-licenses] open source non commercial license
zotz at 100jamz.com
Mon Feb 5 16:55:08 EST 2007
On Monday 05 February 2007 01:06 pm, Emerson Clarke wrote:
> > > I don't think that in principle this makes the software any less free
> > > than the GPL. As i said earlier, the only reason the GPL doesnt claim
> > > license fees is becuase traditionally the attribution of such fees
> > > would be difficult. In all other areas the GPL strives to create an
> > > ecosystem where free software developers and commercial software
> > > developers are separated.
> > This reflects your misunderstanding of the history, purpose, effect, and
> > expectations of the GPL. As a person who started a business in 1989
> > based exclusively on GPL-licensed software, I can state based on
> > personal experience that the success of that company was in no way based
> > upon the forced separation of free and commercial software developers.
> I was only quoting from some sources i read recently, see
> The GPL clearly sets out to create distinct sets software in the
> world, as opposed to BSD style licenses which simply give things away
> for free. To me, personally, the GPL seems a little confused. It
> seems like it was designed by people who wanted to give their software
> away for free, but couldnt quite stomach seeing other people benefit
> from it directly. Hence the non commercial use clause. But the
> problem is the non commercial use clause doesnt cover most of the
> commercial uses.
This may seem harsh, but it is not meant to be. I offer it kindly.
It is not the GPL that is confused, it is you who are confused.
The GPL is designed to ensure the four freedoms.
"Free software is a matter of liberty, not price."
"# The freedom to run the program, for any purpose (freedom 0).
# The freedom to study how the program works, and adapt it to your needs
(freedom 1). Access to the source code is a precondition for this.
# The freedom to redistribute copies so you can help your neighbor (freedom
# The freedom to improve the program, and release your improvements to the
public, so that the whole community benefits (freedom 3). Access to the
source code is a precondition for this."
There is no non-commercial use clause in the license. The whole license is
designed to prevent the software licensed under it from being used as
non-free software under the terms of the license. Commercial is fine,
non-libre is not.
> I dont believe the GPL necessarily creates any more of a community or
> encourages any more contribution than BSD style licenses do.
I believe it does. We could leave it there, or look for metrics and evidence.
Linux is under the GPL.
Various BSDs are under the BSD. (I think.)
> not because of the non commercial clauses. I dont think non
> commercial clauses do anything to contribute to open source.
Ah, but they do. Well, at least to Free Software which many equate to open
I am happy to release my code GPL and other works BY-SAbut reluctant to
release my code BSD or my other works BY.
> At the
> end of the day it is individual developers who contribute time to free
> software, not companies.
This is simply not true. Well unless you are playing word games.
> And in my own experience BSD style licensed
> projects tend to be more pervasive. Projects like zlib, openssl, and
> sqlite have been very succesful becuase of their availability to
> commercial users.
> I dont want to suffer the same indecisive fate, so i see myself either
> finding a suitable solution to the commercial dilemma, or simply going
> with a BSD style license.
> What i am talking about is wether or not an individual can make money
> by producing software, giving it away for free, but also licensing it
> for commercial use.
You could not do this with the BSD (it might be much more difficult with the
BSD, your options for doing so would be reduced with the BSD?), you could
with the GPL. There are a number of companies that do so.
If you do not want to look for the examples yourself, shoot my an email
> > > I believe im more in the BSD style camp of open source licenses, where
> > > if something is free, it should be truly free. Except that i want
> > > people who make money from it to give me some of that money, as is
> > > only fair.
> > There are many who share your preference for BSD-style licenses, but the
> > second statement is only true in your mind. You are welcome to attempt
> > to prove that others believe the same by measuring your commercial
> > success against the commercial success of true open source companies.
> > Your belief that the GPL is fundamentally incompatible with commerce is
> > factually incorrect, as my own experience, and the experience of
> > numerous other open source companies demonstrates. You should not use
> > counter-factual information as the basis of an argument.
> I have not said that the GPL is funfamentally incompatible with
> commerce, but i do believe that 90% of commerce is not covered by the
> GPL. Theres a difference.
all the best,
(da idea man)
More information about the cc-licenses