Development of Creative Commons licenses

[rob AT robmyers.org]

Quoting Emerson Clarke <emerson.clarke AT gmail.com>:

> Thanks,  but I think the LGPL is the wrong direction for me, it
> clearly allows commercial use through linking.  The point that i was
> trying to make is that i do not want to allow any commercial use
> whatsoever without licensing.

You can dual license: sell people a license to link proprietary 
projects to your
libraries without having to share the code, or let them use the 
libraries under
the GPL or LGPL.

> Companies like Apple through their use of open source libraries like
> KDE indirectly make a lot of money.

They also provide source back to KDE, admittedly not without problems in the
past.

> Thats becuase they can claim that
> they are not using or selling the open source library as part of their
> main product, rather they using it to develop a feature which they
> give away for free.

Giving something away for free isn't the issue with that particular example.
Whether the code is proprietary or not, and the scope of the license, are the
issues. Apple have used LGPL-licensed code from KDE to make Safari and have
followed the license to the letter.

> Its a loop hole which im not happy with, i want my software to only be
> free for non commercial uses.

Define non-commercial. It's harder than people think. :-)

> And by that i mean that any company
> making money of the software either directly or indirectly (aka
> linking) should pay a license.

But surely if there are no successful business models for open source software
you don't need to worry about anyone using your open source software to make
money? :-)

> The reason i posted the question to the creative commons is that i
> think this issue actually represents a largely unfilled gap in open
> source licensing.   There is no license currently that i know of which
> creates a business model for open source software...

Many GPL-based companies would disagree.

> Perhaps there should be one ?

If you search the older and darker corners of the web you will find the
occasional project page for noncommerical or academic-only licensed projects.
They have lost out decisively to licenses that protect users freedom.

Language libraries are a largely commodified resource. In my opinion you would
do better by gaining wide adoption of your libraries and keeping stewardship
and expertise of them, using them as a loss leader or advertiser for your
services and a resource for projects, rather than trying to monetise them
directly.

- Rob.