[Discuss] licensing with some exclusivity in hardware

[Emilio Velis]

Even Creative Commons has a lot of issues with the NC license, and I
personally think we should throw it out altogether. A non-commercial
license basically opens sources but not enough to comply with the open
definition:

“Open means *anyone* can *freely access, use, modify, and share* for *any
purpose* (subject, at most, to requirements that preserve provenance and
openness).”

As easy as that.

On 29 June 2016 at 07:42, Justin Mclean <justin at classsoftware.com> wrote:

> Hi,
>
> My licensing experience is more in the open source software world and
> interestingly a number of open source licenses require no restriction of
> use. For instance any license that includes a restriction of use i.e. this
> software can only be use on a certain platform or can’t be used in a
> certain field of endeavour is not compatible with the Apache 2.0 software
> license. [1][2] If you want to use it in an unethical way or even for
> “evil" go ahead the license actually allows it, but if you do it’s unlikely
> you’ll build a community around it.
>
> OS software has copyright protection (unlike OS hardware in most cases)
> but the main purpose of any license is to communicate the intent to how the
> licensed product can be used, copied, modified, distributed etc ect but it
> can't enforce that. It certainly doesn’t stop (some) people from violating
> the license terms and doing what they want, but they are likely to find
> it's not sustainable from a business or community point of view to do so.
>
> Justin
>
> 1.http://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html#criteria
> 2.http://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html#category-x
> _______________________________________________
> discuss mailing list
> discuss at lists.oshwa.org
> http://lists.oshwa.org/listinfo/discuss
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.oshwa.org/pipermail/discuss/attachments/20160629/3a2b9fb9/attachment-0001.html>