License change #8

New Issue

ubergeek · 2019-02-19T14:12:30Z

ubergeek commented

2019-02-19 14:12:30 +00:00

Currently, the license is http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/

I propose we change to CC-BY-SA, as I feel the non-commercial restriction is too restricting for the users.

We need every committer to sign off on this.

Currently, the license is http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ I propose we change to CC-BY-SA, as I feel the non-commercial restriction is too restricting for the users. We need every committer to sign off on this.

anton commented

2019-02-20 15:16:38 +00:00

I think BY-NC-ND is okay.

Ghost commented

2019-02-22 12:20:00 +00:00

I have to differ on the matter. The fact is that thunix 2.0 is technically a derivative of my own personal website (which I didn't even license as of yet,) which was distributed to you guys, adapted & now posted on a git server for everyone else to see & modify.

And if this is being done in the spirit of other people starting their own tilde communities when they're unhappy with thunix, that could also be seen as implying they're free to post their own forked remixes of this site onto git as well (which isn't the case, thanks to the license's not allowing derivatives to be distributed).

This & the fact that my web service also offers commercial options, would make it better for the site's license to be libre, but if not, at least allow others to be able to post derivatives of this under the same license, with original attribution to you guys for the contents on it, plus attribution to me for the new layout & CSS (which can be included in copyright.php, which is currently blank).

I have to differ on the matter. The fact is that thunix 2.0 is technically a derivative of my own personal website (which I didn't even license as of yet,) which was distributed to you guys, adapted & now posted on a git server for everyone else to see & modify. And if this is being done in the spirit of other people starting their own tilde communities when they're unhappy with thunix, that could also be seen as implying they're free to post their own forked remixes of this site onto git as well (which isn't the case, thanks to the license's not allowing derivatives to be distributed). This & the fact that my web service also offers commercial options, would make it better for the site's license to be libre, but if not, at least allow others to be able to post derivatives of this under the same license, with original attribution to you guys for the contents on it, plus attribution to me for the new layout & CSS (which can be included in copyright.php, which is currently blank).

ubergeek commented

2019-02-22 12:27:20 +00:00

Authorship is shown in the git history. I suppose we could autogen the author list to the html generated for each page, as a comment.

Now, since you committed the changes to this site, which was (At the time licensed under CC-BY-NC-ND), you've now dual-licensed your code.

That being said I do believe we should allow people to fork, and distribute their changes, with providing attribution (via git history open copyright acknowledgement in comments, or something), regardless if they're going to use it commercially or not.

I'm open to other license suggestions too, I am however, turned off to the NC-ND clauses of the current license. Basically, we are violating our own FOSS promise.

Authorship is shown in the git history. I suppose we could autogen the author list to the html generated for each page, as a comment. Now, since you committed the changes to this site, which was (At the time licensed under CC-BY-NC-ND), you've now dual-licensed your code. That being said I do believe we should allow people to fork, and distribute their changes, with providing attribution (via git history open copyright acknowledgement in comments, or something), regardless if they're going to use it commercially or not. I'm open to other license suggestions too, I am however, turned off to the NC-ND clauses of the current license. Basically, we are violating our own FOSS promise.

Ghost commented

2019-02-22 12:32:41 +00:00

Me too. I'm more of an MIT sort of guy, but again, it doesn't restrict the users from making derivatives or from using the site for commercial purposes. Technically, I would prefer to license my work under either MIT, or at least CC-BY-SA or even CC-BY0. But I leave that decision up to you guys.

Plus, we already know of two people who have used the 2.0 site's template for their own sites (one who's learning how to make websites, the other who tried to offer paid ZNC shells until he was shot down for using the 2.0 site's sources to do offer a commercial service).

Me too. I'm more of an MIT sort of guy, but again, it doesn't restrict the users from making derivatives or from using the site for commercial purposes. Technically, I would prefer to license my work under either MIT, or at least CC-BY-SA or even CC-BY0. But I leave that decision up to you guys. Plus, we already know of two people who have used the 2.0 site's template for their own sites (one who's learning how to make websites, the other who tried to offer paid ZNC shells until he was shot down for using the 2.0 site's sources to do offer a commercial service).

anton commented

2019-02-25 16:12:10 +00:00

We could probably use CC-BY-ND.

ubergeek commented

2019-02-25 16:15:30 +00:00

No derivatives? Why the need for the restriction, though? Because, again, that makes it non-FLOSS.

anton commented

2019-02-25 17:00:43 +00:00

I think that license is what's used on https://www.gnu.org/ and I don't think they'd use anything nonfree

ubergeek commented

2019-02-25 17:38:19 +00:00

Per Stallman, their license is non-free:
https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-software-even-more-important.html

"(3) The freedom to make and distribute copies of your modified versions, when you wish."

The no-distribution clause makes the license a non-free license. Same with a non-commercial clause.

Per Stallman, their license is non-free: https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-software-even-more-important.html "(3) The freedom to make and distribute copies of your modified versions, when you wish." The no-distribution clause makes the license a non-free license. Same with a non-commercial clause.

Ghost commented

2019-02-27 02:51:07 +00:00

The thing here is that Stallman doesn't want his site to be distributed, especially considering that American organizations have to follow very specific trade laws where embargoes are concerned (i.e.: the trade or availability of software products, free or not, is illegal between any US entity & such countries as Iran, Syria, North Korea...).

Anyways, the nature of your posting the site's sources publicly for users to create their own tilde sites is, in itself, willfully encouraging others to possibly violate the No-Derivatives clause of your license. As for No-Commercial, even if that's non-free, it can still legally help American-based tilde networks by pointing out that they, as non-profit entities, respect US trade embargo laws.

The thing here is that Stallman doesn't want his site to be distributed, especially considering that American organizations have to follow very specific trade laws where embargoes are concerned (i.e.: the trade or availability of software products, free or not, is illegal between any US entity & such countries as Iran, Syria, North Korea...). Anyways, the nature of your posting the site's sources publicly for users to create their own tilde sites is, in itself, willfully encouraging others to possibly violate the No-Derivatives clause of your license. As for No-Commercial, even if that's non-free, it can still legally help American-based tilde networks by pointing out that they, as non-profit entities, respect US trade embargo laws.

anton commented

2019-02-27 23:10:48 +00:00

I retract my original comment. I agree with @ubergeek's proposal.