5 ms·

This judgement by the FSF is unsurprising, Commond Clause is like the Patriot Act, a purposeful misnomer by its authors to attempt to gain unearned goodwill & r

This judgement by the FSF is unsurprising, Commond Clause is like the Patriot Act, a purposeful misnomer by its authors to attempt to gain unearned goodwill & respect.

eganist 8y ago
> Commond [sic] Clause is like the Patriot Act, a purposeful misnomer by its authors to attempt to gain unearned goodwill & respect. The author (not plural) describes in depth the differences between recognized open source licenses v. the commons clause (https://commonsclause.com/ https://commonsclause.com/) and also describes her intent behind developing the license. Specific emphasis appears to have been devoted toward distinguishing this license as being distinctly non-open in the FAQ printed on the root of the domain. (To be clear: I have no affiliation with the author or with this license and any known implementations of it.)
- metildaa 8y ago
  The Commons Clause is added as a restriction to existing open source licensed projects, to those that aren't clued in that the Commons Clause has been applied, they can easily be misled by this poorly named restriction.
  - kemitchell 8y ago
    Creative Commons offers noncommercial licenses even more restrictive than Commons Clause. I'd've picked a different name, too. But the idea that "commons" means only open source, or only free software, doesn't sit right. Compared to pulling their software back as fully closed or source-available, all-rights-reserved, a Commons Clause combo makes a lot more available.
    - duskwuff 8y ago
      Creative Commons specifically recommends against the use of any of their licenses for software. The CC licenses are primarily intended to be applied to artistic works, and the NC/ND variants make a lot more sense in that context.
      - c22 8y ago
        They make an exception for CC0 though [0]. [0] https://wiki.creativecommons.org/wiki/CC0_FAQ#May_I_apply_CC0_to_computer_software.3F_If_so.2C_is_there_a_recommended_implementation.3F https://wiki.creativecommons.org/wiki/CC0_FAQ#May_I_apply_CC...
        cyphar 8y ago
        CC0 is basically a public domain contribution with a very permissive fallback, and is very unlike any of their other licenses. But this is getting off-track -- the CC licenses being discussed are the ones other than CC0.
        kemitchell 8y ago
        CC0 was proposed to OSI approval, but hung up, due largely to the fact that it expressly says it does not cover patent rights.
      - kemitchell 8y ago
        You're right. And I'm well aware. But I don't think that changes my point on "commons". CC-BY-NC is a "commons" license for artwork, music, screenplays, scripts, poems, and novels. Why wouldn't a noncommercial software license be a "commons" license, as well?

This judgement by the FSF is unsurprising, Commond Clause is like the Patriot Act, a purposeful misnomer by its authors to attempt to gain unearned goodwill & respect.

eganist 8y ago

> Commond [sic] Clause is like the Patriot Act, a purposeful misnomer by its authors to attempt to gain unearned goodwill & respect. The author (not plural) describes in depth the differences between recognized open source licenses v. the commons clause (https://commonsclause.com/ https://commonsclause.com/) and also describes her intent behind developing the license. Specific emphasis appears to have been devoted toward distinguishing this license as being distinctly non-open in the FAQ printed on the root of the domain. (To be clear: I have no affiliation with the author or with this license and any known implementations of it.)

metildaa 8y ago
The Commons Clause is added as a restriction to existing open source licensed projects, to those that aren't clued in that the Commons Clause has been applied, they can easily be misled by this poorly named restriction.
- kemitchell 8y ago
  Creative Commons offers noncommercial licenses even more restrictive than Commons Clause. I'd've picked a different name, too. But the idea that "commons" means only open source, or only free software, doesn't sit right. Compared to pulling their software back as fully closed or source-available, all-rights-reserved, a Commons Clause combo makes a lot more available.
  - duskwuff 8y ago
    Creative Commons specifically recommends against the use of any of their licenses for software. The CC licenses are primarily intended to be applied to artistic works, and the NC/ND variants make a lot more sense in that context.
    - c22 8y ago
      They make an exception for CC0 though [0]. [0] https://wiki.creativecommons.org/wiki/CC0_FAQ#May_I_apply_CC0_to_computer_software.3F_If_so.2C_is_there_a_recommended_implementation.3F https://wiki.creativecommons.org/wiki/CC0_FAQ#May_I_apply_CC...
      - cyphar 8y ago
        CC0 is basically a public domain contribution with a very permissive fallback, and is very unlike any of their other licenses. But this is getting off-track -- the CC licenses being discussed are the ones other than CC0.
      - kemitchell 8y ago
        CC0 was proposed to OSI approval, but hung up, due largely to the fact that it expressly says it does not cover patent rights.
    - kemitchell 8y ago
      You're right. And I'm well aware. But I don't think that changes my point on "commons". CC-BY-NC is a "commons" license for artwork, music, screenplays, scripts, poems, and novels. Why wouldn't a noncommercial software license be a "commons" license, as well?