4 ms·

"Legally, Readable's source is under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike license." Erm... Why? Correct me if I'm wrong, but Creative Co

• peterhajas 16y ago
  I meet people who license code under Creative Commons. The license is made for lots of stuff, but it doesn't deal with the intricacies of source code. Some of them are often confused about open source licenses. It probably doesn't help that there's such heated debate (GPL vs. BSD, for example) amongst the licenses.
• tastefulwords 16y ago
  Honestly, I browsed around for less then ten minutes, before deciding on Creative Commons for the code -- and I did so only because I previously saw source-code under various Creative Commons licenses. I did not know that it wasn't recommended; thanks for letting me know. I'll be sure to study the issue more thoroughly and re-license the code.
  • telemachos 16y ago
    Open Source Licenses[1] is a good place to "shop" for licenses, though you might find the "by name" view a bit overwhelming. Maybe start with from the "Licenses that are popular and widely used or with strong communities" section on the "by category"[2] page. [1] http://www.opensource.org/licenses/index.html http://www.opensource.org/licenses/index.html [2] http://www.opensource.org/licenses/category http://www.opensource.org/licenses/category
    • tastefulwords 16y ago
      Thank you.
  • palish 16y ago
    Why not release it under the MIT license? http://www.opensource.org/licenses/mit-license.php http://www.opensource.org/licenses/mit-license.php
    • tastefulwords 16y ago
      As soon as I get a few free minutes, I promise I'll look over licenses more carefully and re-release the code. In case anyone is interested in using the source code right this second, just come back to the site tomorrow and you'll find the new license explicitly stated. If you have any cool ideas for what to do with the code, let me know -- I like hearing cool ideas.
• mgkimsal 16y ago
  It's not recommended for code, but it's one of the few understandable licenses that includes "non commercial" clauses. I've got clients that want to put out code under "creative commons non commercial" because they don't want the code they paid for being used by commercial competitors, but they're fine with people using it non-commercially. Almost all of the 'open source'-type licenses out there concern themselves solely with distribution, not with use. When people find the CC non-commercial, it makes sense to them. Perhaps there needs to be a good 'open source' license created that also includes some use restrictions for these types of cases?
  • BjornW 15y ago
    In my experience commercial vs non-commercial is a can of worms. Not to mention that using it for code is not recommend as you can read on the Creative Commons website. Especially if you (the one licensing your work) are not including a definition of commercial use. Since the license does not include a definition (unless things have radically changed lately) of commercial use, your interpretation of commercial may differ from those using your work. Which for both parties may cause issues. If you do include a definition than at least the people using your work should have some clue as what constitutes commercial in your interpretation. However 'translating' this across judicial systems/countries/cultures/social spheres will again most likely lead to issues you probably want to avoid. In my personal opinion the commercial vs non-commercial clause should never have existed in the first place. Maybe it should be shelved just as the Developing Nations license[1] was shelved. disclosure: I was part of the Creative Commons Netherlands team which introduced the licenses in The Netherlands. I'm still involved in the CC community albeit less active then I used to be. [1] http://creativecommons.org/licenses/devnations/2.0/ http://creativecommons.org/licenses/devnations/2.0/
  • masklinn 15y ago
    Example of libraries using CC for exactly that end: Highcharts. It's under CC-BY-NC.