Andy Roberts a écrit :
> I don't fully agree with your interpretation of 'non-derivative'
>
> 1. You can contribute - simply email your contributions to Paul et al!
> You can't make spin-offs (forks) of the resource, however. Open
> source/Free licenses have never given an automatic right to a
> contributor to force contributions to the project owner/maintainer.
If /Paul et al/ are to give up the project for any reason, there can't
be new maintainer and all the work done is lost. Free licenses don't
give any obligation to owner/maintainer, but anyone can fork them (which
has led to great result such as Blender or inkscape). Such licenses make
their object perennial (as my french-english dictionnary says :).
> 2. Free/open source projects can "use" non-derivative resources. They
> can't redistributed under the same license as the project that uses it.
> This typically means that it is distributed as a separate component.
> It's a bit like saying an open source concordancer can't process the BNC
> because it doesn't use an open licence!
You are right (the same thing can be said for NC : no commercial project
could distribute it, but all can use it as a separate component), but
cc-by-nc-nd is just like freeware : you can freely (like beer) use it
but that's not free (like freedom) at all and I think that's not
suitable for scientific work.
NC part implies, for example, that the lexicon can't be distributed in a
CD-Rom with a proceedings of any conference, as long as the book is
sold, since this is /commercial/, although commercial here doesn't
necessarily means "making money with the lexicon". That also means that
no one can sell the lexicon on CD-Rom, even if the price asked just
compensate the cost of the cd-rom and the cost of the mail.
Remember that cc-by-sa-* (Creative Commons-Attribution-Share
Alike-anything else you want) implies that
* derivative work (if allow) are necessarily under the *same* terms
(Share Alike)
* derivative (if allow) or distributed version necessarily refered to
original work (Attribution)
which seems sufficient to most usages.
I am not to judge what one want or doesn't want to let done with its
work, I just want to warn user of those licenses about issue that most
just don't see. Most of them understand "NC" part as "no one can make
money with my work" althought it means "my work can't be seen near
anything related to money".
It seems preferable to me to protect my work from stealing. I agree to
give my work away but no one is allowed to take my name from it, and no
one is allowed to derivate it in a not free way. Hypothetic commercial
version are free too and can be freely distributed with the same term.
My work has been improved by someone else and the result can still be
used by everyone, how wonderful !
-- Emmanuel Prochasson
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Aug 21 2006 - 17:24:37 MET DST