On Fri, Dec 5, 2025 at 6:04 PM Jonas Smedegaard <
dr@jones.dk> wrote:
Quoting Yogesh Powar (2025-12-05 12:55:19)
> On Fri, Dec 5, 2025 at 3:09 PM Jonas Smedegaard <dr@jones.dk> wrote:
> > Quoting Jonas Smedegaard (2025-12-05 10:34:14)
> > > Quoting Doublefree (2025-12-05 09:36:20)
> > > > We proposed teaching Debian in primary school instead of other
> > > > proprietary OSes.
> > > [...]
> > > > Please need your feedback on the same.
> > >
> > > Who are "we"?
> > >
> > > After a big of digging, I found https://doublefree.in/about-us
> > > but that page does not describe what "us" *is*, only their
> > > beliefs and principles.
> >
> My bad. I accidently sent the email via the company's email.
Ah, makes sense :-)
> Doublefree is LLP registered with intention to work in Open
> Architecture and Open Source solutions.
> It's a Pune based organization and currently just two of us are part
> of it (I am actually full time involved elsewhere - investing some
> free time and resources here as mentor) but want to bring people
> close together who want to work in similar domains.
>
> Also it's not a section-8 or NGO or not-profit organization.
Sounds nice. And the projects presented on the company website looks
absolutely awesome!
> We will update the website with the partner's details - MCA also
> publishes it publicly in India.
Cool!
> Just trying to explore if GNU/Linux can get into school and
> self-sustain.
Ok. Sorry for pulling the conversation in another direction - I hope it
has been constructive, at least.
> > Another important note: Please beware that the license
> > CC BY-SA-NC 4.0 which you use for your educational material is not
> > a Free license by Debian definitions.
> >
> Please suggest a similar Free license.
The license CC BY-SA 4.0 is the Debian-compatible (and OSF-compatible,
in case your company prefer that more business-oriented definition)
that is the closest to CC BY-SA-NC 4.0, but it would be wrong to call
it "similar": If you (or your company) do not want to grant the freedom
to monetize derived works, then it cannot possibly be called a "Free"
licensing, by Debian or Open Source Foundation standards.
Personally, I prefer to use CC BY-SA 4.0 for all non-code works (and
GPL-3-or-later for code). Also for works I want to monetize myself -
but obviously the choice of license affects *how* you are able to
compete on a market. Personally I aim at letting my creative *skills*
drive competition, i.e. charge for my innovative *process* and then
publicly give away the resulting products, using those as a kind of
advertisement for my skill set rather than charging for access to
(have other monetize off of) my past innovations.
You are of course free to choose another business strategy, but just
beware that there are limits to what you can call "free", and
not-commercially-free licensing is *not* free licensing.
Got it.
Basically NC licenses are not Free/Open; if one truly wants openness (use CC BY-SA instead).
You are also suggesting to release the work openly and compete by selling expertise, not by
restricting commercial use.
Sounds interesting. I will study more.
Thanks
Yogesh
Kind regards,
- Jonas
--
* Jonas Smedegaard - idealist & Internet-arkitekt
* Tlf.: +45 40843136 Website: http://dr.jones.dk/
* Sponsorship: https://ko-fi.com/drjones
[x] quote me freely [ ] ask before reusing [ ] keep private