Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

cc-uk - Re: [Cc-uk] FW: creative commons licences

cc-uk AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Cc-uk mailing list

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: Christian Ahlert <christian.ahlert AT oii.ox.ac.uk>
  • To: Rob Myers <robmyers AT mac.com>
  • Cc: cc-uk AT lists.ibiblio.org, mllxkcsb AT yahoo.co.uk, flowow AT yahoo.com
  • Subject: Re: [Cc-uk] FW: creative commons licences
  • Date: Thu, 24 Feb 2005 15:03:56 +0000

Hi all

I will start collecting these examples of "commercial uses" of "non-commercial licenses". IMO CC needs to build up a list of practical examples to showcase the different economics behind this open model. I would welcome any other examples you can come up with; in particular if they do not relate to open source, as this is more meaningful to many in the CC community...

thanks
for the info
--Ch


On 24 Feb 2005, at 14:54, Rob Myers wrote:

On Thursday, February 24, 2005, at 02:42PM, Stuart Yeates <stuart.yeates AT computing-services.oxford.ac.uk> wrote:

This is related to "dual licensing" which is common in the open
source world. MySQL, Sleepy Cat and TrollTech all have successful
business models which involve licensing their software for free as
open source or commercially to be used in closed source software.

Yes, that makes sense.

Being commisioned to modify a work or produce a new one on the basis of exposure of CC'd work would possibly relate to the support/services model .

One thing about MySQL is that you can use it under the free license for commercial projects anyway, as you are unlikely to modify the program itself. Rather you will talk to it using SQL.

Providing software under a dual license ensures its continuing availability, providing consumers with a guarantee that their investment will be protected (and that they won't be locked in to a single vendor). This should make the software more appealing to risk-averse consumers.

http://www.mysql.com/company/legal/licensing/
http://www.sleepycat.com/download/licensinginfo.shtml
http://www.trolltech.com/products/licensing.html

Berkeley and Qt are different to MySQL in that you can't use them in a proprietary setting under a free license. This has to do with the fact that they are support code rather than a complete program like MySQL.

I've seen MySQL take some criticism on Slashdot for misrepresenting the GPL (free license) in order to make paying for something you could use for free anyway seem more attractive. Certainly the services/support/editorial model is truer to the Free Software ideal and requires less distortion than the dual licensing model.

- Rob.






Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page