Development of Creative Commons licenses

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

On Monday 05 February 2007 09:05 pm, Emerson Clarke wrote:
> > > 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.
>
> That does not really answer the question.
>
> "The Qt Commercial License is the correct license to use for the
> construction of proprietary, commercial software."
>
> And neither does that.  The dfinition of proprietary, commercial
> software is loose, and i dont know if it is inclusive of software
> developed and used in-house as accounts for most software in the
> world.

It may be simpler that you think.

If you want your program to be GPL, use the otehr license. For any other 
license you want to use, get the Qt Commercial License. Icould of course be 
wrong, ask them.
>
> I can only assume though that you cannot diminish the GPL, and if the
> GPL allows for such in-house commercial development, then such a dual
> licensing scheme cannot prevent its use.  Perhaps QT knows this and
> the wording is deliberately non specific...

I think you may be making a mistake with respect to the GPL as it applies to 
the copyright holder as opposed to those being granted rights by the GPL. (I 
am not sure, I see two possibilities and will talk to both.)

1. The copyright holder can offer a license other than the GPL that in no way 
has to take the GPL into account. It is only people who avail themselves of 
the rights the GPL offers that need be concerned with it.

2. A dual license scheme can in no way change what is allowed under the GPL 
as 
a result of what the other license says. If you are availing yourself of the 
GPL, that is all you need concern yourself with. Does the GPL allow it? Yes? 
Good, off you go. No? Well, better see what the other license allows.

Example, if you have a business, you can take a GPL accounting program, 
modify 
it to suit yourself and keep your mods private and use the modified program 
to do the books for your business. Now you cannot distribute the modified 
program under any license other than the GPL.

So, in your example, can the software be developed and put to use as intended 
without distribution happening?

I am not sure as you mentioned a government. I have heard that the government 
in the US cannot get copyrights on things it develops. The GPL wouldprevent 
you from developing the software for them and getting the copyright for 
yourself and then letting them have a copy of the code to use without the GPL 
kicking in due to the distribution. (Again, IANAL, if someone has a different 
take on this, I am all ears.)

There must be some wrinkles I am unaware of though as NASA seems to have 
copyrights on some software:

http://opensource.arc.nasa.gov/

all the best,

drew
-- 
(da idea man)