Comments on: Why I license my stuff

By: Anders Melander

Anders Melander — Wed, 05 May 2010 15:52:17 +0000

The CC-BY-SA license does not affect your rights to your own compiled product. It only protects my rights.
I'm not sure what more I can say if this article didn't explain my position and the purpose of the license.

By: Me

Me — Tue, 04 May 2010 02:59:58 +0000

I have read the CC-BY-SA deed many times but still don't know what people can do with a commercial product using some CC-BY-SA components.
If I create and sell a CC-BY-SA product (binary code without source code) using some CC-BY-SA components, can people:
- Distribute (copy) it to their friend freely ? - I hope not, that violates the commercial law.
- Share the source code to other people ? - How? Can they ask me to give them free source code?

By: Jan Goyvaerts

Jan Goyvaerts — Tue, 26 Aug 2008 06:52:18 +0000

Thanks for your response, Anders.

If attribution is important to you, then I agree that the classic open source licenses aren't a good option. If you want to keep the CC-BY-SA license, while still allowing your component to be used in closed source applications, you can do that by explicitly granting permission to do so. E.g. "This software component is licensed under CC-BY-SA. The Share Alike condition is waived if the component is used to create an application or product where the component is not a substantial part of the overall application or product."

The commons deed clearly states: "Any of the above conditions can be waived if you get permission from the copyright holder." Adding a few sentences to the "license" section of your component's page should do it. Ideally, put those same few sentences at the top of the (main) source files of your component. Then there's no argument as to what license you've chosen to put onto your software.

Incidentally, if you don't put a license on your software at all, the default is that nobody can legally do anything with it.

By: Jolyon Smith

Jolyon Smith — Tue, 26 Aug 2008 03:12:06 +0000

I've recently been looking into this area myself.

At the end of the day, it doesn't matter how tightly drawn up a license is, once we give away source all bets are off - someone intent on ripping off your effort without giving you any recognition is able to do so and it's unlikely that you will ever find out or be able to do anything about it if you do.

Similarly anyone willing to respect your rights and generosity in making the source available will do so, even if the license doesn't require it.

I wrestled with wanting to give source away but also be recognised for doing so, until I realised that the two aims were somewhat contradictory.

If reach the point where I am willing to give something away, I have inherently reached a point where recognition or reward for doing so is not important. I just need to realise that myself.

It's almost as if it's one hemisphere of the brain - the creative side perhaps - wanting to give it up, and the other hemisphere - the logical/rational side - clinging to an ingrained notion of property and fighting that urge.

In the end I went with the X11 (a.k.a MIT) License - for one thing it was the easiest and least intrusive to incorporate into my source - where of course it is most important.

I would be interested to learn whether you considered that one, and if you did why you went with the MPL instead.