agnucius at gmail.com
Tue Dec 13 21:09:07 EST 2011
<cc at phizz.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> On 13/12/2011 23:25, Mike Linksvayer wrote:
>> implied by 1-3, NC further restricts the overall value of the commons
>> because it is fundamentally not compatible with fully open licenses,
>> meaning the commons is more fractured, smaller, and less impactful
>> than it could be
> That is solely the problem of the 'open licenses'. It seems to me that
> some are quite capable of mashing up NC licenses without any problems to
> create a comprehensive educational resource:
This debate sounds more and more like the BSD vs GPL war.
BSD allows downstream distributors to add NC/ND restrictions.
The GNU GPL does *not* allow the addition of such restrictions.
BSD code is therefore used a great deal to create proprietary
products such as Apple's OSX and parts of Microsoft's NT line.
This make BSD 'successful', in that is is highly utilized, but it
also causes a societal problem, in that those derivatives are
not 'Open' of "Free as in Freedom".
The GNU GPL allows commercial use and distribution, and
also allows derivatives *but* requires the result *also* be made
'Open' or "Free as in Freedom".
It is estimated the GNU GPL is the |most used| Free Software
license in the world today. I would say part of that popularity
stems from the 'protection' it provides to those willing to open
(or Free) their code to the world.
The "perpetually free" nature of the GNU GPL becomes an
important part of corporate strategy for those corporations
willing to use this legal instrument - for they can then help
society and solicit helpers without allowing other corporations
the possibility of using that code or data against them.
More information about the cc-community