4 ms·

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 do

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
  As far as I know, there isn't any free licensed license¹ for software that includes that clause, but in theory nothing prevents you from taking e.g. the MIT license and adding that clause yourself. IANAL, YMMV. ¹ As written works they are, licenses are themselves subject to copyright, so you can't just copy someone else's licenses and use it yourself.
- rmc 15y ago
  Creative Commons like this project uses? The FSF and OSI are both clear about what liberties a licence must give to people for it to be called open source / free software, and "must allow commercial reuse" is one of them. Software that includes a non commercial clause doesn't get built upon much and so clauses like that don't get much traction.
deleted 15y ago
[deleted]

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
As far as I know, there isn't any free licensed license¹ for software that includes that clause, but in theory nothing prevents you from taking e.g. the MIT license and adding that clause yourself. IANAL, YMMV. ¹ As written works they are, licenses are themselves subject to copyright, so you can't just copy someone else's licenses and use it yourself.
rmc 15y ago
Creative Commons like this project uses? The FSF and OSI are both clear about what liberties a licence must give to people for it to be called open source / free software, and "must allow commercial reuse" is one of them. Software that includes a non commercial clause doesn't get built upon much and so clauses like that don't get much traction.

deleted 15y ago

[deleted]