On Mon, Apr 18, 2011 at 10:12:24PM +0100, Rob Myers wrote: > >“commercial” is ambiguous, and while I don’t expect “commercial“ use to > >be restricted, I don’t think it needs to be explicitly stated. Just > >allow “any field of endeavour”. KISS, etc. > > Since there are licences that explicitly exclude commercial use that > used in projects branded "open" (OpenCourseWare being a particularly > egregious example of this) it is worthwhile mentioning commercial > use, however vague it is as a concept.
Next, we’ll all be jumping off a cliff because a few lemmings do it (but they can swim), or just following the rest of the sheep. Sometimes that’s a godd thing, many free software licences have done without mentioning commercial use, and other than by others spouting FUD they have not restricted it either. The only “restriction” I have seen is that some software developers perceive reciprocal licences as a hindrance because the reciprocal licenses prevent them from removing freedoms from the end user. The GPL doesn’t explicitly mention “commercial” distribution (except for when providing an offer of source code), but does say that charging for the software is not excluded. I think that is far less ambiguous. The Apache licence v2 similarly doesn’t use the term “commercial” (except in the limitation of liability clause), and mentions charging a fee (for idemnity, warranty, among others). It doesn’t explicitly mention “commercial use” because it doesn’t need to. Those are just two examples, there are many more. If the CTs or license must mention some form of “commercial” distribution, I would much rather they explicitly say that you may charge a fee for distribution than use the term “commercial”. Simon -- A complex system that works is invariably found to have evolved from a simple system that works.—John Gall
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
_______________________________________________ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
