[cc-licenses] NonDerivative NonCommercial Licenses

Jonathon Blake jonathon.blake at gmail.com
Tue Mar 28 16:59:33 EST 2006

Greg wrote:

> The grounds are very simple:
> what you call (ii) "Free speech, not free beer" above (value added Linux vendors), you associate  with a CC-NC-SA license.
> The problem is that Anything that any vendor does with linux must remain GNU-GPL.

I chose a bad example there.
What I was trying to do there, was identify a group that offers Libre
software, but not Free software.

> restrictions to be called Free. End of story.

This is the Debian defintion of "Free" as contrasted to the Microsoft
defintion of "Free".

> It's all within the author's right to do so, but it isn't FLOSS. And while I would guess

I didn't claim the Bible study program was FLOSS.

> So, no license can completely enforce Mathew 10:8 in all possibilities around the original work.

I've seen that conclusion before, using a different chain of reasoning.

> > CC-SA-NC Licence documentation:  Probably 2 500 hours of
> 2,500 hours or 500 hours? some kind of typo there.

Not a typo.  [The space is the group separator.   (Enshrined in the
legal code.)]

> So, I think the basic idea of copyleft still applies as being the best for gift economy projects.



Ethical conduct is a vice.
Corrupt conduct is a virtue.

Motto of Nacarima.

More information about the cc-licenses mailing list