Home Explore Help
Register Sign In
splat
/
splat
Watch 2
Star 0
Fork 0
Files Issues 1 Pull Requests 0 Wiki
Labels Milestones
New Issue

#1 Licensing issue (discussion)

Open
opened 5 years ago by probs · 5 comments
probs commented 5 years ago

Resolve any conflicts between notabug.org and Splat's noncommercial license.

See hp/gogs#44

Resolve any conflicts between notabug.org and Splat's noncommercial license. See https://notabug.org/hp/gogs/issues/44#issuecomment-9013
zPlus commented 5 years ago

Hi @probs, if you could join #peers on freenode this issue can be discussed with other members of the community. I'm afraid however, that BY-NC-SA doesn't satisfy the requirements that are expected from a free license, so I don't think it's aligned with the purpose and goals of NotABug.

As I said in the other thread, in my opinion the best option is simply to relicense the project under a different license, for example BY-SA or GPL. This wiki is also relevant to this thread.

Hi @probs, if you could join `#peers` on freenode this issue can be discussed with other members of the community. I'm afraid however, that BY-NC-SA doesn't satisfy the requirements that are expected from a free license, so I don't think it's aligned with the purpose and goals of NotABug. As I said in the other thread, in my opinion the best option is simply to relicense the project under a different license, for example BY-SA or GPL. [This wiki](https://freedomdefined.org/Licenses/NC) is also relevant to this thread.
bill-auger commented 5 years ago

On Thu, 19 Jul 2018 10:18:35 +0000 probs wrote:

My intent was to keep it in the spirit of free software, while also guaranteeing that the user can access it freely.

the confusion seems to be that the word "free" there is used twice with different meanings - "in the spirit of free software" uses "free" in the "free as in freedom" sense - while "the user can access it freely" uses "free" in the "free as in beer" sense

there is one key assumption in using that statement as a justification for a non-commercial license that is incorrect and does not do the job you are assuming that it does - namely: a non-commercial license does not guarantee that the software will always be available free of cost - no software license that i know of has that requirement - the main feature of non-commercial licenses are to prevent business from using the software for their own purposes - anyone can charge a reasonable fee for distributing any free software and that is not necessarily considered to be a commercial activity

from: https://wiki.creativecommons.org/wiki/NonCommercial_interpretation

“NonCommercial means not primarily intended for or directed towards commercial advantage or monetary compensation.”

On Thu, 19 Jul 2018 10:18:35 +0000 probs wrote: > My intent was to keep it in the spirit of free software, while also guaranteeing that the user can access it freely. the confusion seems to be that the word "free" there is used twice with different meanings - "in the spirit of free software" uses "free" in the "free as in freedom" sense - while "the user can access it freely" uses "free" in the "free as in beer" sense there is one key assumption in using that statement as a justification for a non-commercial license that is incorrect and does not do the job you are assuming that it does - namely: a non-commercial license does not guarantee that the software will always be available free of cost - no software license that i know of has that requirement - the main feature of non-commercial licenses are to prevent business from using the software for their own purposes - anyone can charge a reasonable fee for distributing any free software and that is not necessarily considered to be a commercial activity from: https://wiki.creativecommons.org/wiki/NonCommercial_interpretation > “NonCommercial means not primarily intended for or directed towards commercial advantage or monetary compensation.”
probs commented 5 years ago
Owner

Bill and I discussed this extensively on #peers, but for the record:

  1. In case there was any confusion, "in the spirit[1] of free software" does refer to "free as in freedom," and "user can access it freely" was meant to refer to both "free as in freedom" and "free as in beer." That is, nobody is stopping the user from accessing it, in any manner, including by charging a fee the user isn't prepared to pay. If anyone was confused by this, I hope it's clear now.

  2. According to our discussion, what Bill is referring to here is the idea that selling at a loss or breaking even would actually be in compliance with NC (while selling at a profit would not, of course). In fact, this is exactly what I want out of the license. If the "user can access it freely" wording is the source of this confusion, I apologize for that... perhaps it should have been something like "without restriction, and at minimal or no cost."

[1] spirit - the deeper more significant meaning as opposed to a pedantic interpretation: the spirit of the law. (from thefreedictionary.com)

Bill and I discussed this extensively on #peers, but for the record: 1. In case there was any confusion, "in the spirit[1] of free software" *does* refer to "free as in freedom," and "user can access it freely" was meant to refer to *both* "free as in freedom" and "free as in beer." That is, nobody is stopping the user from accessing it, in any manner, including by charging a fee the user isn't prepared to pay. If anyone was confused by this, I hope it's clear now. 2. According to our discussion, what Bill is referring to here is the idea that selling at a loss or breaking even would actually be in compliance with NC (while selling at a profit would not, of course). In fact, this is *exactly* what I want out of the license. If the "user can access it freely" wording is the source of this confusion, I apologize for that... perhaps it should have been something like "without restriction, and at minimal or no cost." [1] spirit - the deeper more significant meaning as opposed to a pedantic interpretation: the spirit of the law. (from thefreedictionary.com)
bill-auger commented 5 years ago

ok - it sounds like what you are really trying to avoid is proprietarization - the GPL could provide that also - as long as you or anyone else is still distributing the software under the GPL then it would not matter if anyone else is charging a fee for it because it would still be freely available from you

ok - it sounds like what you are really trying to avoid is proprietarization - the GPL could provide that also - as long as you or anyone else is still distributing the software under the GPL then it would not matter if anyone else is charging a fee for it because it would still be freely available from you
probs commented 5 years ago
Owner

Bill, right, that's pretty much what I want to do.

GPL could work toward that end; I considered it. The main thing that concerns me with that approach is that it could be distributed on some popular medium that I can't freely access (for example: iTunes store, Steam) for a fee, and I wouldn't be able to intervene by making a cheaper copy available without actually spending some time on it and incurring an expense to myself in doing so. Also, just the fact that I'd have to intervene in that way, instead of the license covering it, is unappealing.

At the end of the day, I think I should choose the most appropriate license for the actual software in question, rather than choosing a license based on some particular worldview or ideal. In this case I still think NC is the best type of license for this software, although I'm always open to discussion.

As an aside, the SIL Open Font License is an interesting case where additional restrictions have been placed on distribution, yet DFSG, FSF, and OSI all accept the license, presumably based on the understanding that different restrictions are appropriate for different types of product being licensed, and of existing group norms (as in, it needs to jive with how the typography community actually does things). In fact it's my understanding that the additional restriction was put in place for a reason similar to the reason I want to use the NC license...

A free font is not meant to be simply repackaged as a paid font. It's meant to be embedded in a document or program.

Similarly, I think, a free game is not meant to be repackaged as a paid game. It's meant to be enjoyed by the player.

Bill, right, that's pretty much what I want to do. GPL could work toward that end; I considered it. The main thing that concerns me with that approach is that it could be distributed on some popular medium that I can't freely access (for example: iTunes store, Steam) for a fee, and I wouldn't be able to intervene by making a cheaper copy available without actually spending some time on it and incurring an expense to myself in doing so. Also, just the fact that I'd have to intervene in that way, instead of the license covering it, is unappealing. At the end of the day, I think I should choose the most appropriate license for the actual software in question, rather than choosing a license based on some particular worldview or ideal. In this case I still think NC is the best type of license for this software, although I'm always open to discussion. As an aside, the SIL Open Font License is an interesting case where additional restrictions have been placed on distribution, yet DFSG, FSF, and OSI all accept the license, presumably based on the understanding that different restrictions are appropriate for different types of product being licensed, and of existing group norms (as in, it needs to jive with how the typography community actually does things). In fact it's my understanding that the additional restriction was put in place for a reason similar to the reason I want to use the NC license... A free font is not meant to be simply repackaged as a paid font. It's meant to be embedded in a document or program. Similarly, I think, a free game is not meant to be repackaged as a paid game. It's meant to be enjoyed by the player.
Sign in to join this conversation.
Labels
Clear labels
No Label
Milestone
Clear milestone
No Milestone
Assignee
Clear assignee
No assignee
3 Participants
Write Preview
Loading...
Cancel
Save
There is no content yet.