Re: draft of a new Open Source Commercial License

[Markus Hitter]

Am 18.09.2013 15:34, schrieb David Chisnall:
> For example, if I run a free service that runs the web app and allows
> anyone to use it, am I commercial?  What happens if I put ads on it?
> What about if the ads are only covering the cost of hosting it?

It doesn't matter. The point of a -NC licence isn't to sell copies, but
to keep the reputation at yourself.

The problem with open source is, if you develop some code and set up a
paid service or sell hardware copies to earn money, you have a
substantial drawback over those setting up the service only. Leechers
have less work, so they can, given the same amount of resources, offer a
substantially better service, taking customers away.

I call the latter "copy shops" and if they appear, say bye-bye to your
design. Copy shops will always be substantially cheaper and half a year
later, people will barely remember who did the original work.

Now enter -NC: you can (rarely needed, though) point your finger at the
misuse and get back your reputation.

Another reason why the precise distinction between commercial and
non-commercial use in edge cases doesn't matter is, you can't make a
living from services, which can be offered for free, anyways. Not even
big players like Facebook or Google do so. Everybody doing paid business
has to be clear wether and where he expects payment, so there's also a
pretty clear line where commercial use starts.

Somewhat problematic with -NC licences is handling derivates. What, if a
developer changes just a few lines and sells it as his own, with his own
licence? So far it has worked well to ask these people to give their
derivate a distinct name.


Markus

-- 
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Dipl. Ing. (FH) Markus Hitter
http://www.reprap-diy.com/
http://www.jump-ing.de/