3 ms·

The Non-Commercial provision of the license is towards the app/code, not what the app is used for by end users. You would not be able to install it and sell us

The Non-Commercial provision of the license is towards the app/code, not what the app is used for by end users. You would not be able to install it and sell users right to use it, but you would be able to install it in-house for your own employees.

alexvitkov 2y ago
If that's what the license says, fair enough, but that's not how I parsed it. This is not a software-specific license so it's not as clear as say the GPL, where there's very explicit language for source code, object code, compilation, execution, distribution, ... Here's an excerpt from the license: - 1. Subject to the terms and conditions of this Public License, the Licensor hereby grants You a worldwide, royalty-free, non-sublicensable, non-exclusive, irrevocable license to exercise the Licensed Rights in the Licensed Material to: - A. reproduce and Share the Licensed Material, in whole or in part, for NonCommercial purposes only; and - B. produce, reproduce, and Share Adapted Material for NonCommercial purposes only. I don't understand what I'm reading in the slightest, I wouldn't touch this with a ten foot pole. I can "produce", "reproduce" and "share" the licensed material. I'm definitely not sharing it, so if "running the code" is allowed at all, it must fall under the "produce" or "reproduce" categories. The text is pretty clear that you can only "produce" and "reproduce" it for NonCommercial purposes as well, so what does that leave me with?
- spencerflem 2y ago
  Yeah, I'm with you. CC is not well suited for something that can be run - unlike an image or music where its pretty clear what's happening when you use it.
senko 2y ago
That's not what non-commercial means.
- Juliate 2y ago
  Disagree. That's exactly an n-th example of why this non-commercial clause is bogus since the very beginning of CC, and particularly unadapted for software code: no one is able to define clearly what commercial means, and what perimeter it applies to. Selling the code? (you're a software editor) You could say it's covered/forbidden by the license. Selling the service the code gives when it is running? (you're a PaaS) You could say too. Selling anything unrelated to the code and the running app (say, oranges), but using the app to organise privately within a corporation? (you could be a shop owner installing the software for yourself and your team within your own building) 1/ the license says nothing about it, 2/ if it were covered and forbidden, how would it be even enforceable?
  - senko 2y ago
    > That's exactly an n-th example of why this non-commercial clause is bogus since the very beginning of CC, and particularly unadapted for software code: no one is able to define clearly what commercial means, and what perimeter it applies to. Agree with you on this one and I'd go step further: CC licences in general are poor fit for software. > Selling anything unrelated to the code and the running app (say, oranges), but using the app to organise privately within a corporation? (you could be a shop owner installing the software for yourself and your team within your own building) CC disagree with that interpretation: https://wiki.creativecommons.org/wiki/NonCommercial_interpretation https://wiki.creativecommons.org/wiki/NonCommercial_interpre... (also https://wiki.creativecommons.org/wiki/Defining_Noncommercial https://wiki.creativecommons.org/wiki/Defining_Noncommercial). Excerpt (that I think is most relevant, but it's definitely a nuanced issue): > uses by for-profit companies are typically considered more commercial [...] one exception to this pattern is in relation to uses by individuals that are personal or private in nature Based on this, I think the common agreement would be that this is commercial use. > how would it be even enforceable? That's not a point for ignoring the license. If you download pirated movies, games, or other software, it's very unlikely you'll get caught, but you're still committing a crime. However in this case, it actually can be enforcable. If the organization is eg. a startup that raises venture funding or is getting acquired, legal due dilligence will involve examination of all licences for software used.
Brian_K_White 2y ago
It says "for NonCommercial purposes only" None of us gets to say that there are some commercial purposes that are ok and some that are not. You have to go by what it says. Or put it this way, some day someone what wants to use it against you, can and will go by what it says, and they will be right and win that argument. This license is really pretty bad because while they try to allow educational use, educational use is itself usually also commercial use. If you use it in a class that you charge for, if a school that charges tuition uses it, if a youtuber even so much as uses it in a video that has either ads or a sponsor... those are all conmmercial use of the software. Relying on the the rights-holder to just not persue it, ever, including next year when the rights-holder is some new owner, is just gambling. Trying to carve out non-commercial is just misguided and ultimately self-defeating in my opinion. It is better than purely traditionally closed software, but ultimately really not by much. The primary value is, if you happen to rely on this software and can't avoid it, then having any form of access to the source is better than being helpless to the usual black box. At least you can fully document mysteries that aren't fully documented, let alone maybe being able to debug or customize.

alexvitkov 2y ago

If that's what the license says, fair enough, but that's not how I parsed it. This is not a software-specific license so it's not as clear as say the GPL, where there's very explicit language for source code, object code, compilation, execution, distribution, ... Here's an excerpt from the license: - 1. Subject to the terms and conditions of this Public License, the Licensor hereby grants You a worldwide, royalty-free, non-sublicensable, non-exclusive, irrevocable license to exercise the Licensed Rights in the Licensed Material to: - A. reproduce and Share the Licensed Material, in whole or in part, for NonCommercial purposes only; and - B. produce, reproduce, and Share Adapted Material for NonCommercial purposes only. I don't understand what I'm reading in the slightest, I wouldn't touch this with a ten foot pole. I can "produce", "reproduce" and "share" the licensed material. I'm definitely not sharing it, so if "running the code" is allowed at all, it must fall under the "produce" or "reproduce" categories. The text is pretty clear that you can only "produce" and "reproduce" it for NonCommercial purposes as well, so what does that leave me with?

spencerflem 2y ago
Yeah, I'm with you. CC is not well suited for something that can be run - unlike an image or music where its pretty clear what's happening when you use it.

senko 2y ago

That's not what non-commercial means.

Juliate 2y ago
Disagree. That's exactly an n-th example of why this non-commercial clause is bogus since the very beginning of CC, and particularly unadapted for software code: no one is able to define clearly what commercial means, and what perimeter it applies to. Selling the code? (you're a software editor) You could say it's covered/forbidden by the license. Selling the service the code gives when it is running? (you're a PaaS) You could say too. Selling anything unrelated to the code and the running app (say, oranges), but using the app to organise privately within a corporation? (you could be a shop owner installing the software for yourself and your team within your own building) 1/ the license says nothing about it, 2/ if it were covered and forbidden, how would it be even enforceable?
- senko 2y ago
  > That's exactly an n-th example of why this non-commercial clause is bogus since the very beginning of CC, and particularly unadapted for software code: no one is able to define clearly what commercial means, and what perimeter it applies to. Agree with you on this one and I'd go step further: CC licences in general are poor fit for software. > Selling anything unrelated to the code and the running app (say, oranges), but using the app to organise privately within a corporation? (you could be a shop owner installing the software for yourself and your team within your own building) CC disagree with that interpretation: https://wiki.creativecommons.org/wiki/NonCommercial_interpretation https://wiki.creativecommons.org/wiki/NonCommercial_interpre... (also https://wiki.creativecommons.org/wiki/Defining_Noncommercial https://wiki.creativecommons.org/wiki/Defining_Noncommercial). Excerpt (that I think is most relevant, but it's definitely a nuanced issue): > uses by for-profit companies are typically considered more commercial [...] one exception to this pattern is in relation to uses by individuals that are personal or private in nature Based on this, I think the common agreement would be that this is commercial use. > how would it be even enforceable? That's not a point for ignoring the license. If you download pirated movies, games, or other software, it's very unlikely you'll get caught, but you're still committing a crime. However in this case, it actually can be enforcable. If the organization is eg. a startup that raises venture funding or is getting acquired, legal due dilligence will involve examination of all licences for software used.

Brian_K_White 2y ago

It says "for NonCommercial purposes only" None of us gets to say that there are some commercial purposes that are ok and some that are not. You have to go by what it says. Or put it this way, some day someone what wants to use it against you, can and will go by what it says, and they will be right and win that argument. This license is really pretty bad because while they try to allow educational use, educational use is itself usually also commercial use. If you use it in a class that you charge for, if a school that charges tuition uses it, if a youtuber even so much as uses it in a video that has either ads or a sponsor... those are all conmmercial use of the software. Relying on the the rights-holder to just not persue it, ever, including next year when the rights-holder is some new owner, is just gambling. Trying to carve out non-commercial is just misguided and ultimately self-defeating in my opinion. It is better than purely traditionally closed software, but ultimately really not by much. The primary value is, if you happen to rely on this software and can't avoid it, then having any form of access to the source is better than being helpless to the usual black box. At least you can fully document mysteries that aren't fully documented, let alone maybe being able to debug or customize.