@Shamar @kaniini @starbreaker @rysiek I'm skeptical of and concerned about commercial exploitation too. Problem is, "noncommercial" doesn't fix the things you'll expect it to, and will prevent things you want.
Here's a question: if Linux were noncommercial, should a community run nonprofit be legally allowed to run it in a commercially run hosting service / datacenter? Even if the hosting service profits from it? Can the cooperative collect dues?
CC's interpretation of NC is purposefully vague to be flexible: https://wiki.creativecommons.org/wiki/NonCommercial_interpretation
In my opinion, that doesn't make it very useful; NC is mostly a barrier to combining with other FOSS licenses, especially the big copyleft licenses.
In some cases, artists and musicians feel more comfortable with CC licensing... 1/2
But, back to your example - I think a reasonable interpretation would allow use of those emojis as "not primarily intended for or directed towards commercial advantage or monetary compensation.", which is the CC interpretation (though not actual legal advice, precedent, or ruling). 2/2
@ebel @rysiek @cwebber @Shamar @starbreaker interesting... attribution can be difficult for artistic works too, e.g. combining CC graphics from multiple sources for print works or merchandise (where do you put attribution on a one inch button?).
OSM should probably also ask the contributor to license any of their original work under ODbL when they submit; dual licenses would probably make life easier in the long run, but also new versions of CC licenses can address this compatibility directly.
@diggity @rysiek @cwebber @Shamar @starbreaker
"Where do you put the attribution?" Sec 3(a) of the CC-BY-SA licence covers this.
Copyright holder gets to define a "reasonable manner" (3.a.1.i)
#OSM has a form letter ( https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B3PN5zfbzThqeTdWR1l3SzJVcTg/view ) which asks the holder to agree that a mention on the osm.org/copyright page suffices.
Also CC licence forbids use with DRM (2.a.5.c), OSM licence allows it if you offer parallel download.
Have you seen the peer production license? http://wiki.p2pfoundation.net/Peer_Production_License
I think its a bit better than a blanket NC license. What I really want is a license requiring income from a commercial entity be used to improve the software. Either by spending time working on it, or paying for others time.
Guys so what if I want something I do (code in my case) be and remain in any of its evolution a gift?
Is there anything wrong with it?
No license exists to allow this?
I know that my current license of choice (GPL and AGPL) allow this under certain conditions. And I find it annoying.
I would also agree to private myself from the opportunity to remove the gift, I just want it to remain a gift in any of its evolutions.
I don't think we'll ever see a license that keeps a work free and freedom-respecting in every possible scenario, for every person on Earth, until the end of human time. That's too tall of an order.
Remember, license enforcement is the flip side of the coin here... and it's difficult or discouraged, usually. There are very heated battles over FOSS enforcement strategy right now.
If I don't think eternal copyright is a good idea for creative works, why should it be appropriate for software?
Admittedly I'm not sure we're going to see a penguin books reissue of the first fortran compiler, but still, it should be released to the public domain.
And most of the time that's entirely enough, because derivative works become licensed anew. The original's copyright might expire, but the derivative work is still under copyright -- and that's usually where the interesting stuff is happening and what people would like to use (or lock down).
I do not WANT to give away my copyright, but I could accept to, if I was sure that the code would not be turned into a private profit.
However, accepting contributions under the same license only limit me and everybody else to that license, which might not be strict enough to prevent future explitations.
Notice there is nothing about "noncommercial" in the GPL.
That's my point, NC is not necessary to achieve what people think it's needed for. And it's counter-productive and problematic in general.
I've always read it this way too.
But recently I started to think that Stallman, as smart as he is, is still grown in a capitalist culture and subconsciously absorbed many of this culture's assumptions/requirements.
My recent answer to the "why block good uses related to money" is: because they have proved to break the good qualities of the software itself, in the long run.
There have been, for example, attempts to use licensing models to dictate use of software in weapons, in animal testing, and so on.
@cwebber @Shamar @kaniini @starbreaker @rysiek on the cooperative note specifically, there is the PPL and a whole history and culture behind it, discussed at length in this P2P wiki: https://wiki.p2pfoundation.net/Peer_Production_License
...and then there's the JSON license, with the infamous "Good, not Evil" clause. That kind of thinking is good but leaves room for almost any moral justification; just ask Google ;)
IMO the friction introduced outweighs any benefit from these unenforceable clauses
In theory they are.
Sadly, sometimes in Italy, they are used to private workers from their rights.
However, my long term dream is to create an hacker cooperative where each developer has the same hour wage which is a fraction of the total income.
This way people would have no reason to compete inside the organization and all to gain from improving the productivity.
The issues are: how to decide rapidly and how to keep all serious at work...