[cc-licenses] open source non commercial license
emerson.clarke at gmail.com
Mon Feb 5 14:30:42 EST 2007
> > 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.
> The problem with the Microsoft licenses is not that they come from
> Microsoft. It's that Microsoft has not submitted the licenses to the
> Open Source Initiative's license approval process, so they have not be
> discussed, so they cannot be approved by the OSI board, and therefore
> they are not OSI-approved licenses. If and when Microsoft submits a
> license to the process, they will get the same fair hearing that any
> other submission would receive, and the invitation to do so remains
> open. Until then, the open source community (or at least this open
> source community member) will take a wait-and-see approach.
Ok, thats interesting.
I guess there are no existing similarly constructed shared source
licences then ?
Do you think that such a shared source license which forced its
licensing restrictions to be upheld in derivative works like the GPL
does would be doomed from the outset though.
If one of my goals is to have adoption in the open source community
then i may as well confront the issue. In your opinion, are open
source licenses at such a point where developers face a "use license
X, or sink" situation, and is there no way to weave in a new style of
license with a new definition of non commercial ?
More information about the cc-licenses