5 ms·
Regardless of whether or not it is harmful to open source, I find the choice to use two words beginning with C (thus CC as an acronym) flawed, as that abbreviat
by kup0 8y ago
Regardless of whether or not it is harmful to open source, I find the choice to use two words beginning with C (thus CC as an acronym) flawed, as that abbreviation is typically used to refer to Creative Commons, and Commons Clause and Creative Commons sound quite similar too since they both use the word Commons.
I would hope this was not an intentional choice to sow confusion.
Edit: obvious spelling error :)
- dantillberg 8y agoTiny note: "sew confusion" is a malapropism; "sow confusion" is the canonical expression.
- kup0 8y agoThanks! I knew something didn't look right, but apparently hadn't had enough sleep or caffeine to figure it out.
- mongol 8y agoI am sure it is intentional
- rectang 8y agoBetween the name, the abbreviation, and the suggested usage of "Apache + Commons Clause" for a proprietary offering, this "Commons Clause" project has severe problems with deceptive messaging. If it was unintentional it was incredibly foolish; if it was deliberate.... Either way it should be junked.
- paulddraper 8y agoApache + Commons...Apache Commons...how confusing can you be? https://commons.apache.org/ https://commons.apache.org/
- codeflo 8y agoThe plus sign suggests an additional right, as a dual license would offer, instead, it removes rights from the Apache license. I don't think that's an accident because judging from the website, this seems to be a very serious attempt to put a positive spin on "look but don't touch" style proprietary licensing schemes. Fuck this.
- AstralStorm 8y agoIn other words, it is no longer Apache license and it is NOT ALLOWED to use Apache Software Foundation trademark Apache. Call it Indian license or what not. This is unlike GPL which allows the use of the name as long as the clauses are not restrictive.
- riffraff 8y agohow can extra clauses not be restrictive? I mean, if they don't add new restrictions, what do they do?
- beaner 8y agoI guess a clause could specify exemptions to previous clauses.
- codeflo 8y agoExactly. This used to be quite common, see for example https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/GPL_linking_exception https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/GPL_linking_exception
- toyg 8y agoRemove restrictions? For example, the BSD license requires attribution, so you could have an extra clause that basically says "attribution is not required anywhere".
- christefano 8y ago> Call it Indian license or what not. Come on, really? I'm sure you could have picked a less offensive example than "Indian license".
- jtbayly 8y agoyes, I assumed they were related.
- lliamander 8y agoI agree it is confusing. However, there are Creative Commons licenses which do restrict resale of the licensed work (in the same way that this clause restricts resale of the licensed software). In my mind, this fact somewhat diminishes the scale of the deception.
- kjeetgill 8y agoI agree. I think this is my biggest objection with it. Aside from that attempt to hijack mindshare (consumer protection and trademarks anyone?) I couldn't care less about the license. Proprietary licenses are a dime a dozen.
- rmc 8y agoAnd since Creative Commons have a non-commerical licence, which is similar in aim to this. Plenty understand that as "CC-NC"