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: drew Roberts <zotz AT 100jamz.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 16:41:28 -0500

On Monday 05 February 2007 01:36 pm, Dana Powers wrote:
> "The GPL requires the software to always be free..."
>
> That's not true.

Yes, it is true. You have fallen into the classic mistake with Free Software
which is thinking that the word free refers to price (is gratis) whereas the
word free actually refers to freedom (is libre) and if you go to the link you
provided, you will see this is how it is used in context.

"The main difference between the two licenses is that revised BSD licenses
are
permissive while the GPL is copyleft. The GPL requires the software to always
be free, including derivative works, by requiring the software to always be
licensed under the GPL. The BSD license only requires acknowledging the
original authors, and imposes few restrictions on how the source code may be
used. As a result, BSD code can be more easily integrated into or released
entirely as proprietary software."

Free BSD code can be used in a non-free program. The non-free (non-libre)
program can be given away (gratis) or sold (non-gratis.)

GPL code can only be used in other GPL programs. Thus the code is always free
(libre) but it may be given away (gratis) or sold (non-gratis.) Actually with
the GPL instead of selling, you may say that you charge for transferring, but
it still amounts to non-gratis.

all the best,

drew
--
(da idea man)




Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page