Post by SOTE » 29 Nov 2018, 16:22
jNizM wrote: ↑11 Apr 2017, 01:20
If someone knows a licence like
CC BY-NC-SA (alternatively
CC BY-NC) but for source code give me a hint. I would use it.
CC BY-NC-SA wrote:Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike
This license lets others remix, tweak, and build upon your work non-commercially, as long as they credit you and license their new creations under the identical terms.
Putting software under CC BY-NC-SA is very similar to GPL. It's arguably just a more clear to read and simplified version of it, that can be more easily understood. There are a number of software releases that uses the CC BY-NC-SA, so if that is what a person wants to do, then they can put their software under it too.
However, a person should be very clear about the effects and necessity of their restrictions. Allowing for business and commercial use might be the best way to become famous or well known in an industry, and then a person can capitalize on that. In other cases, the code created could be the best alternative to do something or help lives, but companies won't touch it (due to license), so it sits in a "corner" collecting dust and dies in obscurity. GPL has found itself becoming a curse or curse word, and maybe CC BY-NC-SA might just be it's equally virus infected, but cute cousin.
"Personal use only" or "Non-Commercial use" type licenses can be ambiguous or people play with the "line". For instance, a person uses the software in the work place, but only on their machine? Is the business liable for some software they might not have known a worker was using? They use the software at home, but for their home business? If the source code is viewable, what's stopping people from re-writing it or portions of it? Except now, they won't give the author credit, where if commercial use was permissible then they would give credit. There are many of these hard to define situations.
As a personal opinion, I think if a person is going to allow it to be free, then just let it go. Let it really be free, be it for personal or commercial use. MIT license, Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY), or Creative Commons Public Domain (CC0). Even if free, a person can still request for
donations (even from businesses), to allow for the "contribute if you can afford to or want to help" model. And many don't realize that you can even setup non-profit organizations, give software out for free, but still get big donations from large corporations because of being a tax break, tax deduction, or they want to support continual development. Even if a person doesn't go all out on that level, small donations might be enough. As opposed to years past, there are a lot more options in regards to free software.
If the author is going to charge for it, is a business, or wants/needs to make a profit off of it, then arguably it might just be best to go full payware as oppose to trying to have one foot on each side of the line. No confusion, no odd exceptions, everybody pays. If a person wants to be sympathetic, then perhaps establish different pricing models, where special categories pay much less and businesses pay much more. And if running a business, customer demands, or customer support are too much of a hassle, but the person likes programming, then just let it be totally free software and maybe accept donations.
[quote=jNizM post_id=142284 time=1491891648 user_id=75]
If someone knows a licence like [c]CC BY-NC-SA[/c] (alternatively [c]CC BY-NC[/c]) but for source code give me a hint. I would use it.
[quote="CC BY-NC-SA"]Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike
This license lets others remix, tweak, and build upon your work non-commercially, as long as they credit you and license their new creations under the identical terms.[/quote]
[/quote]
Putting software under CC BY-NC-SA is very similar to GPL. It's arguably just a more clear to read and simplified version of it, that can be more easily understood. There are a number of software releases that uses the CC BY-NC-SA, so if that is what a person wants to do, then they can put their software under it too.
However, a person should be very clear about the effects and necessity of their restrictions. Allowing for business and commercial use might be the best way to become famous or well known in an industry, and then a person can capitalize on that. In other cases, the code created could be the best alternative to do something or help lives, but companies won't touch it (due to license), so it sits in a "corner" collecting dust and dies in obscurity. GPL has found itself becoming a curse or curse word, and maybe CC BY-NC-SA might just be it's equally virus infected, but cute cousin.
"Personal use only" or "Non-Commercial use" type licenses can be ambiguous or people play with the "line". For instance, a person uses the software in the work place, but only on their machine? Is the business liable for some software they might not have known a worker was using? They use the software at home, but for their home business? If the source code is viewable, what's stopping people from re-writing it or portions of it? Except now, they won't give the author credit, where if commercial use was permissible then they would give credit. There are many of these hard to define situations.
As a personal opinion, I think if a person is going to allow it to be free, then just let it go. Let it really be free, be it for personal or commercial use. MIT license, Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY), or Creative Commons Public Domain (CC0). Even if free, a person can still request for [u]donations[/u] (even from businesses), to allow for the "contribute if you can afford to or want to help" model. And many don't realize that you can even setup non-profit organizations, give software out for free, but still get big donations from large corporations because of being a tax break, tax deduction, or they want to support continual development. Even if a person doesn't go all out on that level, small donations might be enough. As opposed to years past, there are a lot more options in regards to free software.
If the author is going to charge for it, is a business, or wants/needs to make a profit off of it, then arguably it might just be best to go full payware as oppose to trying to have one foot on each side of the line. No confusion, no odd exceptions, everybody pays. If a person wants to be sympathetic, then perhaps establish different pricing models, where special categories pay much less and businesses pay much more. And if running a business, customer demands, or customer support are too much of a hassle, but the person likes programming, then just let it be totally free software and maybe accept donations.