Re: Unbundling the GPL

Terry Hancock schrieb:
> Joachim Durchholz wrote:
>> Sure, we'd have CC licenses that don't fit the
definition of "Free and 
>> Open Source Software".
>>
>> I'm not sure that this would be a Bad Thing.
> 
> I am.
> 
> The sheer political backlash would be quite sufficient
to make it a "Bad
> Thing". :-O

Please elaborate.

First, I'm not sure that a political backlash is
unavoidable.

Second, I'm not sure that a political backlash is
undesirable. 
Disagreement need not be a Bad Thing, for example, if the
outcome is a 
clearer view of the issues.

I'm open to arguments in both areas.

> Besides, there's very little reason to create such a
license. It would
> achieve nothing over using By-NC for software,

I'd be happy if CC simply checked its existing licenses,
adapted them so 
that they'll fit for software, and changed the
recommendations.

However, I don't expect that the currently available license
building 
blocks from CC are a good match for software. Access to
sources is an 
important part, and no CC license covers that.
It *might* be a good idea to "backport" source
access (interpreted as 
"preferred form for editing") to the standard
clauses. If somebody 
releases a picture built from a gazillion of layers and
somebody wants 
to exchange just the background, it would be helpful if the
released 
information consisted of not just the picture but the
layers.

> except that it might reveal the source code, which is
actually a
> negative to the user -- because seeing the source code
can be used to
> argue that you copied it. This is the trap with
Microsoft "Shared
> Source" licenses and the like.

The burden of proof would still be with MS, and copying is
difficult to 
prove. MS would need additional evidence to make that case.

Of course, you really should not look at the sources, to
avoid 
inadvertent copying which would help MS argue the case.
But then no license can force you into copying, inadvertent
or not.

> Anyone interested in producing free-licensed software
would generally do
> better to avoid exposing themselves to the sight of
non-free code.

Sure.

> IOW, NC-licensed "open source"[1] software is
actually WORSE than
> proprietary closed source code.

I don't see any problems with NC (Non Commercial). I think
you mean ND - 
No Derivatives.

> [1] Obviously I don't mean "open source" in
the OSD sense, but merely in
> the sense of having source code you can read.

Call that "published source" if you wish 
_______________________________________________
cc-licenses mailing list
cc-licenseslists.ibiblio.org
http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-licenses

Joachim Durchholz wrote:
> I don't see any problems with NC (Non Commercial). I
think you mean ND - 
> No Derivatives.

No, both are traps for free software authors:

ND - use my code in anything new, I sue you
NC - use my code in anything new, I extort you for money or
I sue you anyway

(Oh yeah, and I can sue you just for using it unchanged,
too!)

As Capt. Reynolds would say, "TRAP!!!!"


At least if no source is provided, I have a strong hint that
the
software is non-free.

And why would you provide source for either? I have no
economic
incentive to contribute to your codebase either way.

More importantly, since the only thing a source code
provision would do
is to ensure that I share my source back to you if I do make
changes --
which I either can't make or can't use if I do make -- why
would it matter?

Cheers,
Terry

-- 
Terry Hancock (hancockAnansiSpaceworks.com)
Anansi Spaceworks http://www.AnansiSpac
eworks.com

_______________________________________________
cc-licenses mailing list
cc-licenseslists.ibiblio.org
http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-licenses