You are not logged in.

#26 2020-07-29 20:15:37

Trilby
Inspector Parrot
Registered: 2011-11-29
Posts: 23,944
Website

Re: package archive binary executable

That's a great license for content / documents, but I believe the authors don't encourage it for code.  But you previously said you like the GPL, and it checks the same boxes as the CC-BY-SA-NC.


"UNIX is simple and coherent..." - Dennis Ritchie, "GNU's Not UNIX" -  Richard Stallman

Online

#27 2020-07-30 07:38:26

Anchorman
Member
Registered: 2020-07-26
Posts: 28
Website

Re: package archive binary executable

You forget about the non-commercial NC part i think.

Offline

#28 2020-07-30 13:32:55

Trilby
Inspector Parrot
Registered: 2011-11-29
Posts: 23,944
Website

Re: package archive binary executable

No.  The difference that has no actual effect on derivative works.  First, with the CC-BY-SA-NC, people who recieve it can make changes and can redistribute those changes for a fee as long as they can justify the fee as covering their costs (as opposed to a commercial profit).  Meanwhile, with the GPL, while legal, it is not possible in practice to make profit for selling copies of a derivative work.

One can make profit on creating GPL'ed code.  Software engineers can get paid to add or create specific features for the code, and consultants can get paid to advise on code or design choices.  But there is no money to be made purely on selling GPL code.  Once you sell one copy, you'd be out of business.

Although it is an interesting point that I am not aware of any software license that is so explicitly non-commercial as the CC-NC while still allowing modification and redistribution.

Last edited by Trilby (2020-07-30 13:35:16)


"UNIX is simple and coherent..." - Dennis Ritchie, "GNU's Not UNIX" -  Richard Stallman

Online

#29 2020-07-30 15:08:11

Anchorman
Member
Registered: 2020-07-26
Posts: 28
Website

Re: package archive binary executable

Do you have a source for the 'covering their costs part'?
I found this: https://wiki.creativecommons.org/wiki/N … rpretation but it's not mentioned there i think.

It would be strange if someone could take your code/app and port it to let's say android and either charge money from the app store or use advertisements... and then claim it is to cover their costs.
It' not like someone forced them to spend time porting the code to android...

It's also curious that the CC is not also designed for source code. From what i see in questions about these licenses is that there are enough other people who want a NC clause for code.

Last edited by Anchorman (2020-07-30 15:08:55)

Offline

#30 2020-07-30 15:47:02

Trilby
Inspector Parrot
Registered: 2011-11-29
Posts: 23,944
Website

Re: package archive binary executable

I don't currently have a source, but it is discussed on many licensing FAQs.  Restricting commercial re-use means the content cannot be used for the "primary purposes" of making a profit.  It is a bit vague, but in practice that has generally not prohibited compensation of expenses for making the material available.  But again, the CC were not really designed as software licenses - so sometimes the applicability is odd.  With a NC licensed work of literature, one could distribute printed copies and charge for the cost associated with printing, just the intellectual property of the content cannot be charged for.

Why do you feel the GPL does not cover your goals?

Last edited by Trilby (2020-07-30 15:47:40)


"UNIX is simple and coherent..." - Dennis Ritchie, "GNU's Not UNIX" -  Richard Stallman

Online

#31 2020-07-30 19:33:08

Anchorman
Member
Registered: 2020-07-26
Posts: 28
Website

Re: package archive binary executable

GPL... well you and me both already gave example's of commercial use/abuse.

You see i made this application for myself because i was disappointed with the commercialization of some bible websites and software. And disappointed by the abuse (IMO) of copyright holders that seem to milk the user for all they can. So even though i own copies of modern popular translations i cannot always use them like i want but have to use the approved website portals or windows or android or apple software, but i use Arch! Also they don't always allow comparison between many translations in a parallel view. Or they restrict the amount of verses or the software/website is slow and i had more complaints.

This however is now fixed for me, so goal accomplished.
If i can help one or two other people with similar complaints and desires and without helping those who just want to make money and restrict access, that would be another goal accomplished. Do you understand?

Offline

#32 2020-07-30 21:32:34

Trilby
Inspector Parrot
Registered: 2011-11-29
Posts: 23,944
Website

Re: package archive binary executable

Yes I do.  I still believe GPL is what meets your goals best.  But you we're going around in circles here.  It seems you have the information to make your choices now.


"UNIX is simple and coherent..." - Dennis Ritchie, "GNU's Not UNIX" -  Richard Stallman

Online

#33 2020-07-30 21:40:19

Anchorman
Member
Registered: 2020-07-26
Posts: 28
Website

Re: package archive binary executable

Sure, thanks for the info. It will be closed source first until I'm ready with improving the code as much as i can. After that if there are actually people that like to use it, the license might become GPL or similar.

Offline

Board footer

Powered by FluxBB