Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

cc-licenses - Re: [cc-licenses] open source non commercial license

cc-licenses AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Development of Creative Commons licenses

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: "Emerson Clarke" <emerson.clarke AT gmail.com>
  • To: "Discussion on the Creative Commons license drafts" <cc-licenses AT lists.ibiblio.org>
  • Subject: Re: [cc-licenses] open source non commercial license
  • Date: Mon, 5 Feb 2007 18:47:10 +0000

Dana,

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.

It seems that as a software developer you are forced to make the
choice between adoption or commercialisation. The more open the
license, the wider the adoption, but at a diminishing commercial
return.

I wish there was a way i could just say it was free for open source
use but not free for commercial use. But the more restrictive
licenses get in the way of that becuase they are incompatible. It
would then mean that my code could never be used with a GPL project.

How do you avoid the situation where no one will use your library for
risk of their project becoming a clutter of licensing restrictions and
yet, as an individual, still make money from software ?



On 2/5/07, Dana Powers <dana.powers AT gmail.com> wrote:
On 2/5/07, Emerson Clarke <emerson.clarke AT gmail.com> wrote:
> I was only quoting from some sources i read recently, see
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BSD_and_GPL_licensing

I think that article could use some major clarification and cleaning up:

"The GPL requires the software to always be free..."
That's not true. It requires that source code be distributed (or at least
made available) with object code, and it permits further redistribution by
users/distributees on the same terms. There are no requirements one way or
the other about (1) pricing or (2) types of use, although the distribution
restrictions no doubt influence choices about both. Whether you think these
restrictions make the GPL licensing system more compatible with "freedom" is
an entirely separate question.

CC licenses don't address the object code / source code distinction, so they
usually are not recommended for software licensing. But the license that
comes to mind for what you're looking for is one of Microsoft's Shared
Source licenses, particularly the CLI:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shared_source#Microsoft_Shared_Source_Common_Language_Infrastructure

It goes without saying that licenses like these have been shunned by the
free-software and open source communities because they are very skeptical of
usage restrictions (neither seem particularly fond of CC-NC).

Dana

_______________________________________________
cc-licenses mailing list
cc-licenses AT lists.ibiblio.org
http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-licenses







Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page