5 ms·

I get that these terms do have specific meanings, but it bothers me that those meanings are so restrictive as to be unintuitive to someone not steeped in the do

by wcarss 15y ago

I get that these terms do have specific meanings, but it bothers me that those meanings are so restrictive as to be unintuitive to someone not steeped in the dogma of the community. These people made the source openly available and, by the CC license applied, can't it be modified and redistributed? That feels like "openness" to me. Thus, this feels like "open source", but technically the open source proprietors haven't opened the term "open source", so it's not. Or have I misunderstood the license in this case? I admit, I am posting before looking, because the time it would take to look could make my post irrelevant. Correction: I just went and looked. The license acts as I expected and has a digestible compact form for easy consumption. Now I've gone and looked at the OSI site, and the CC license is not one they have approved. Yet they provide the material on the OSI site as CC licensed. This distinction suddenly just seems dumb. Can someone elucidate it, or its use, please?

mseebach 15y ago
The problem is the "NC" = non-commercial. It is, when you think about it, a very strong restriction on what you can do with it. I totally get that the author doesn't want somebody to come along and go make money on the back of his work. But let's say that you download the code, enhance it and put it on your Github for the world to see. Great, you're allowed to do that[1]. But what if you're a contractor and your Github is part of your public profile, i.e. your professional marketing material? You could very well be in breach of the NC clause. That's why FOSS enthusiast tend to be a little purist about it. OSI and FSF approved licenses contain no such ambiguity. Also, there's the down-watering of the term itself. RMS actively opposes the term "open source" because it's less free than his "free software" definition, the success of which he considers OSI to leech on. I'm not even sure how open source is less free than free software (although I'm sure it is), but I agree with the concern that the term open source should be protected to include the concern of absolutely free usage. 1: Although you could construct the argument that since Github is a commercial entity that benefits from showcasing code on their website, it's actually a commercial usage.
- wcarss 15y ago
  Awesome! Thanks to you and icebraining for the responses. The Non-Commercial distinction makes sense. To be clear though, would a CC BY or CC BY SA license be fine, then? It's not listed on the OSI Approved Licenses list (which is the issue others took earlier in the thread, or so I thought), but those would appear to serve the same ideals that approved licenses do. If that wouldn't be fine, I'd love to better understand why not.
  - icebraining 15y ago
    I don't know what's the OSI position, but they're considered Free by the FSF/GNU, although they'd prefer if people used something else, since they're GPL-incompatible. https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html#ccby https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html#ccby
    - cdcarter 15y ago
      The rhetoric that tends to be thrown around is that CC licenses aren't specifically designed for code, and that there are other licenses that accomplish the same thing but cover your bases better.
      - mseebach 15y ago
        That's not rhetoric, it's an argument. And a good one.
        cdcarter 15y ago
        hmm, perhaps I should have used "language". I agree.
- alttag 15y ago
  Is there an OS-type license that includes a NC clause? (Yes, I understand that true OS licenses can't have that restriction by definition, but I hope the intent of my question is clear.)
icebraining 15y ago
Just to explain it: It's the "NC" (noncommercial) part. From the OSI: The license shall not restrict any party from selling (...) the software And the FSF: A free program must be available for commercial use, commercial development, and commercial distribution.
rmc 15y ago
The definition of open source / free software is quite short and succinct, as can be seen by the Free Software Defintion (aka "Four Freedoms") ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Free_Software_Definition http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Free_Software_Definition ), the Debian Free Software Guidelines ( http://www.debian.org/social_contract#guidelines http://www.debian.org/social_contract#guidelines ) and Open Source Definition ( http://www.opensource.org/osd.html http://www.opensource.org/osd.html ). The absolute deal breaker with CC-NC-SA that would stop it dead from being "open source" is the "NC" or "non-commercial" clause. For someone just playing around, this isn't too much of a problem. But when you start building & distributing it, you start to run into headaches. e.g. If you were to improve this lots and make it way better, and put it on your website, would you be allowed to have Google Ads on your webpage? Is that a commercial use of this? You can never sell a computer fully loaded with linux and this game, cause that's a commercial use, etc. Imagine

by wcarss 15y ago

mseebach 15y ago

The problem is the "NC" = non-commercial. It is, when you think about it, a very strong restriction on what you can do with it. I totally get that the author doesn't want somebody to come along and go make money on the back of his work. But let's say that you download the code, enhance it and put it on your Github for the world to see. Great, you're allowed to do that[1]. But what if you're a contractor and your Github is part of your public profile, i.e. your professional marketing material? You could very well be in breach of the NC clause. That's why FOSS enthusiast tend to be a little purist about it. OSI and FSF approved licenses contain no such ambiguity. Also, there's the down-watering of the term itself. RMS actively opposes the term "open source" because it's less free than his "free software" definition, the success of which he considers OSI to leech on. I'm not even sure how open source is less free than free software (although I'm sure it is), but I agree with the concern that the term open source should be protected to include the concern of absolutely free usage. 1: Although you could construct the argument that since Github is a commercial entity that benefits from showcasing code on their website, it's actually a commercial usage.

wcarss 15y ago
Awesome! Thanks to you and icebraining for the responses. The Non-Commercial distinction makes sense. To be clear though, would a CC BY or CC BY SA license be fine, then? It's not listed on the OSI Approved Licenses list (which is the issue others took earlier in the thread, or so I thought), but those would appear to serve the same ideals that approved licenses do. If that wouldn't be fine, I'd love to better understand why not.
- icebraining 15y ago
  I don't know what's the OSI position, but they're considered Free by the FSF/GNU, although they'd prefer if people used something else, since they're GPL-incompatible. https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html#ccby https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html#ccby
  - cdcarter 15y ago
    The rhetoric that tends to be thrown around is that CC licenses aren't specifically designed for code, and that there are other licenses that accomplish the same thing but cover your bases better.
    - mseebach 15y ago
      That's not rhetoric, it's an argument. And a good one.
      - cdcarter 15y ago
        hmm, perhaps I should have used "language". I agree.
alttag 15y ago
Is there an OS-type license that includes a NC clause? (Yes, I understand that true OS licenses can't have that restriction by definition, but I hope the intent of my question is clear.)

icebraining 15y ago

Just to explain it: It's the "NC" (noncommercial) part. From the OSI: The license shall not restrict any party from selling (...) the software And the FSF: A free program must be available for commercial use, commercial development, and commercial distribution.

rmc 15y ago

The definition of open source / free software is quite short and succinct, as can be seen by the Free Software Defintion (aka "Four Freedoms") ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Free_Software_Definition http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Free_Software_Definition ), the Debian Free Software Guidelines ( http://www.debian.org/social_contract#guidelines http://www.debian.org/social_contract#guidelines ) and Open Source Definition ( http://www.opensource.org/osd.html http://www.opensource.org/osd.html ). The absolute deal breaker with CC-NC-SA that would stop it dead from being "open source" is the "NC" or "non-commercial" clause. For someone just playing around, this isn't too much of a problem. But when you start building & distributing it, you start to run into headaches. e.g. If you were to improve this lots and make it way better, and put it on your website, would you be allowed to have Google Ads on your webpage? Is that a commercial use of this? You can never sell a computer fully loaded with linux and this game, cause that's a commercial use, etc. Imagine