Development of Creative Commons licenses

[drew Roberts <zotz AT 100jamz.com>]

On Monday 05 February 2007 07:55 pm, Emerson Clarke wrote:
> > > I wish there was a way i could just say it was free for open source
> > > use but not free for commercial use.  But the more restrictive
> > > licenses get in the way of that becuase they are incompatible.  It
> > > would then mean that my code could never be used with a GPL project.
> >
> > The usual approach in that situation is to do as Rob suggested and dual
> > license the software under both the GPL and a proprietary license. QT is
> > one prominent example of this approach.
> >
> > This allows at least GPL compatible free software applications to use the
> > work but does limit what can be done commercially, especially where the
> > work is a library like yours. Anyone who wanted to develop a proprietary
> > application using the library would have to obtain a commercial license
> > before distributing their application. It doesn't completely eliminate
> > commercial exploitation (people can still do things like sell Linux
> > distributions including the software) but anything that did would have
> > trouble getting accepted by the community.
>
> Mark, perhaps im missing something but doesnt that mean that companies
> are still free to use the software in circumstances where they are not
> distributing it ?
>
> As i mentioned before, i think that 90% of commercial software is
> never made public.  And my understanding of existing open source
> licenses like the GPL is that they only place restrictions on software
> which is actually distributed to the public.
>
> Or does the dual license somehow revoke the existing commercial
> conditions in the GPL ?    For instance, if i were a large government
> consulting firm hired to develop a piece of software worth millions of
> dollars for the government, there would be nothing to stop me from
> using QT internally as the basis for this implementation.

If you make use of the other license for QT and not the GPL one, you can use 
QT as the basis for this implementation whether the project is an internal 
one or an external one.

If you can manage to develop the software such that the government is 
actually 
the developer and would have the copyright if they could, (KEY: such that 
there is not distribution) then the code would have to be under the GPL, but 
there would be no compulsion to distribute the code. It could be kept 
private. Non-distribution could not be a condition though. (IANAL though so 
check this all out for yourself.)

http://www.trolltech.com/products/qt/licenses/licensing - Qt Commercial 
Licensing link.

"You must purchase a Qt Commercial License from Trolltech or from any of its 
authorized resellers before you start developing proprietary software. The 
Commercial license does not allow the incorporation of code developed with 
the Open Source Edition of Qt into a proprietary product."

You will have to pay though, if you want the non-GPL license. Up front.

all the best,

drew
-- 
(da idea man)