What the developers want relicensing the skin ? Slowdown the adoption of roundcube ?
I don't believe roundcube will receive many contributions (talking about the skin) from the commercial users, like ISPs. Why I will contribute with a code to be used in the default skin if I can't use it ? On Sat, 29 May 2010 13:38:57 +0200, Jonas Meurer <[email protected]> wrote: > hey, > > On 28/05/2010 Carlos Pasqualini wrote: >> the change you make to the license of the Default Skin, as i can >> understand, makes so difficult for a company to use roundcube for >> commercial purposes. >> >> The license http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/ states that >> you have lots of attributions but "Not commercial Use". >> >> I think that roundcube needs to have a "base theme" (GPL, CC-by-sa, >> CC-by, etc) from which one can build themes without having legal issues. > > i agree with you that CC-by-nc is a bad license for the default skin. > For example it's a reason to keep roundcube out of linux/bsd/... > distributions. > > i don't know whether relicensing the default skin is an option. if not, > then a new default skin with a more permissive, really free license > would be necessary. > > FreeBSD, OpenBSD, NetBSD, Ubuntu, Debian and Fedora all have roundcube > available as package/port, and they would need to drop/substitude the > skin in order to update the package/port to latest version. > >> Suppose a webmaster, adapting a RC Theme to suit the graphical design of >> a given bussiness, with the new license that job cannot use the default >> skin as a start base; the new skin needs to be written from scratch!. >> For every new version of roundcube, the entire skin needs to be >> reviewed. >> >> The other point, i'm even more worried about, is using roundcube as the >> webmail solution on a ISP, using the default skin. I'm reading the >> entire CC-by-nc license, but if this is a commercial use of the skin... >> ¿does it fit into the permissions granted by the Skin's license? >> >> i would be less worried if the license was CC-by-sa > > yes, version 3 of CC-by-sa would be good. even better would be a more > permissive license. for debians point of view (as an example) see > http://wiki.debian.org/DFSGLicenses > > greetings, > jonas > > > > --- 8< --- detachments --- 8< --- > The following attachments have been detached and are available for > viewing. > http://detached.gigo.com/rc/CT/kKMDZTUg/signature.asc > Only click these links if you trust the sender, as well as this message. > --- 8< --- detachments --- 8< --- -- Emerson Pinter --- 8< --- detachments --- 8< --- The following attachments have been detached and are available for viewing. http://detached.gigo.com/rc/hB/RGFB9Lox/disclaimer.txt Only click these links if you trust the sender, as well as this message. --- 8< --- detachments --- 8< ---
_______________________________________________ List info: http://lists.roundcube.net/dev/
