[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: creative commons

On Thu, 11 Jan 2007 21:43:27 -0800 Jeff Carr wrote:

> But, it seems relevant that the CC license is not being designed
> exclusively for software.

CC license*s* (there are many of them, unfortunately: please avoid
collapsing them all into one senseless unity...) are not designed for
But they are designed for other kinds of software works (documents,
musical tracks, animations, images, ...).

When I say "software", I use the term in its broad sense, as opposed to

> Are you confident that in all aspects of
> where the CC license is intended to be used that non-commercial
> clauses are not useful?

Is the Microsoft EULA useful?  Yes, it's useful to Microsoft (at least
in the short term).  Is it useful to end users?  No, it's harmful to

The issue here is not whether the NC license element is /useful/.
It's whether it meets the DFSG.

I am pretty confident that it does *not* meet the DFSG, whatever work it
is applied to.  It definitely forbids selling the work (fails DFSG#1)
and discriminates against a field of endeavor (fails DFSG#6).

 Try our amazing Releas-o-meter!
..................................................... Francesco Poli .
 GnuPG key fpr == C979 F34B 27CE 5CD8 DC12  31B5 78F4 279B DD6D FCF4

Attachment: pgpWrYkWlXdfs.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Reply to: