4 ms·

The big problem with "Non-Commercial" licenses is that they don't come with a strict definition of what's "Commercial". A non-profit charging to cover some cost

The big problem with "Non-Commercial" licenses is that they don't come with a strict definition of what's "Commercial". A non-profit charging to cover some costs (event at a loss) might be considered commercial... but what if a corporation uses or distributes the NC content completely for free? It should be considered commercial, because they're getting value out of it. ... And then you realize that most of the time everybody gets value, in some way, out of their work. So even if there are clear whites and blacks the gray area is insurmountable.

dspillett 5y ago
> A non-profit charging to cover some costs (event at a loss) might be considered commercial. I would default to considering anything attracting funds through charging as commercial. The fact they are choosing not to try make a profit is not significant in itself. I'd prefer such cases to ask, and I'll hand out a perpetual (but non-transferable) free licence if I consider their cause, and how they are running it, to be a good one.
- mnw21cam 5y ago
  And this raises the other point. If I license my software under a non-free license such as CC-BY-NC-SA, there is absolutely nothing stopping me from licensing it additionally under a different license. I can do that if I'm the copyright owner. It becomes more difficult when there are multiple contributors to the software, and therefore multiple copyright owners. You would have to obtain the permission of all of the copyright holders before you can do that. There are ways around this. For example, people submitting contributions to a project can be asked to agree to hand over copyright of their contributions, though this might not fly in all jurisdictions. Alternatively, all contributors could be asked to agree to delegate licensing decisions to the project lead team.
  - dspillett 5y ago
    Yep. I don't currently have anything published (I did in the past, may do again soon), but if/when I do I'll probably err on the side of “its mine, if you want to update it fork it (but respect the license)”, initially at least, to avoid any issues of ownership should I decide to change terms general or agree specific terms with specific parties.

dspillett 5y ago

> A non-profit charging to cover some costs (event at a loss) might be considered commercial. I would default to considering anything attracting funds through charging as commercial. The fact they are choosing not to try make a profit is not significant in itself. I'd prefer such cases to ask, and I'll hand out a perpetual (but non-transferable) free licence if I consider their cause, and how they are running it, to be a good one.

mnw21cam 5y ago
And this raises the other point. If I license my software under a non-free license such as CC-BY-NC-SA, there is absolutely nothing stopping me from licensing it additionally under a different license. I can do that if I'm the copyright owner. It becomes more difficult when there are multiple contributors to the software, and therefore multiple copyright owners. You would have to obtain the permission of all of the copyright holders before you can do that. There are ways around this. For example, people submitting contributions to a project can be asked to agree to hand over copyright of their contributions, though this might not fly in all jurisdictions. Alternatively, all contributors could be asked to agree to delegate licensing decisions to the project lead team.
- dspillett 5y ago
  Yep. I don't currently have anything published (I did in the past, may do again soon), but if/when I do I'll probably err on the side of “its mine, if you want to update it fork it (but respect the license)”, initially at least, to avoid any issues of ownership should I decide to change terms general or agree specific terms with specific parties.