2 ms·
Does the linked license https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/3.0/us/ https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/3.0/us/ really mean you cannot read
by _flux 5y ago
Does the linked license https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/3.0/us/ https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/3.0/us/ really mean you cannot read it, and then write a piece of software that implements it?
My reading of the license implies it covers _the document_, like a book or a song could be licensed that you cannot modify and redistribute the results, or maybe not redistribute at all: not what you make with the information you gain from reading it.
https://wiki.creativecommons.org/wiki/NonCommercial_interpretation https://wiki.creativecommons.org/wiki/NonCommercial_interpre... makes me think the license is about _copyright_, not about what you make with the document. The page also has the explanation about "Explanations of NC do not modify the CC license".
Even if the NC clarification somehow held true, then I still don't see how it would prevent someone from writing e.g. a MIT-licensed library implementing the interface (the non-commercial use bit) and then someone else just takes it and uses it for whatever, within the limitations of the MIT license.
- rolleiflex 5y agoI think yours is the widely agreed upon definition of Creative Commons. I am likewise bewildered by their interpretation — it seems that they are suggesting anyone that reads this document is forever poisoned and thus cannot design or implement a Mongo compatible software. To my humble legal knowledge (not a lawyer) that sounds pretty specious at best.