4 ms·

If you want to have control about how your creative works are reused, then you should choose to stay with plain-old Copyright and grant (or deny) authorizations

If you want to have control about how your creative works are reused, then you should choose to stay with plain-old Copyright and grant (or deny) authorizations as requested. It's a little bit crazy to say "Yeah, this license gives you total freedom to reuse this work however you want without asking permission, except when the original author doesn't like the result". Where do you draw the line? It defeats the purpose of the license. You can make a parallel with FOSS, your software could be used to run nuclear missiles, a pedophilia network or other nasty things. I don't like it quite a bit, but the other option is a slippery slope in my opinion.

drakaal 13y ago
GPL and MIT both allow you to put any restriction you want in the license. "Free for use to academia and by organizations which are working for the betterment of Animals" The courts might have given the copyright holder a hard time, but the license was setup such that in the documentation you could add restrictions. Because this wasn't specifically blocked by 3.0, this is a new restriction because it is explicit in this license.
- mkesper 13y ago
  You cannot add additional restrictions to GPLed works, they are void. https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#NoMilitary https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#NoMilitary
  - drakaal 13y ago
    Sorry that was a change from V2 of GPL. I had forgotten that GPL changed in v3. I try to avoid V3 because several bad things came from that change. The Free for Noncommercial use change being among them.
    - belorn 13y ago
      > The Free for Noncommercial use change being among them. GPLv3 added two new concept. 1#, you may not give people software under false pretense, and then later go sue them for patents. 2#, you may not work around the license with the use of technical restrictions. The rights provided in the license to users should not be limited by legal (gplv2), and gplv3 simply adds same rule to cover identical restrictions from technical means. What has either to do with commercial use?
- Flimm 13y ago
  That is completely incorrect. If a piece of software is licensed under the GPL or the MIT, you have the right to use it for any purpose. If it didn't, it wouldn't meet the free software definition, nor the open source definition.

drakaal 13y ago

GPL and MIT both allow you to put any restriction you want in the license. "Free for use to academia and by organizations which are working for the betterment of Animals" The courts might have given the copyright holder a hard time, but the license was setup such that in the documentation you could add restrictions. Because this wasn't specifically blocked by 3.0, this is a new restriction because it is explicit in this license.

mkesper 13y ago
You cannot add additional restrictions to GPLed works, they are void. https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#NoMilitary https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#NoMilitary
- drakaal 13y ago
  Sorry that was a change from V2 of GPL. I had forgotten that GPL changed in v3. I try to avoid V3 because several bad things came from that change. The Free for Noncommercial use change being among them.
  - belorn 13y ago
    > The Free for Noncommercial use change being among them. GPLv3 added two new concept. 1#, you may not give people software under false pretense, and then later go sue them for patents. 2#, you may not work around the license with the use of technical restrictions. The rights provided in the license to users should not be limited by legal (gplv2), and gplv3 simply adds same rule to cover identical restrictions from technical means. What has either to do with commercial use?
Flimm 13y ago
That is completely incorrect. If a piece of software is licensed under the GPL or the MIT, you have the right to use it for any purpose. If it didn't, it wouldn't meet the free software definition, nor the open source definition.