license question

Gundul
Member
Posts: 1221
Joined: Thu Aug 27, 2015 10:55
GitHub: berengma
IRC: Gundul
Location: Europe/Asia
Contact:

license question

by Gundul » Post

I am a noob when it comes to licenses.

Is it possible to apply CC BY-NC-ND
to your source code ?
My servers: Jungle, Lilly in the valley click for my mods

User avatar
rubenwardy
Moderator
Posts: 6431
Joined: Tue Jun 12, 2012 18:11
GitHub: rubenwardy
IRC: rubenwardy
In-game: rubenwardy
Location: United Kingdom
Contact:

Re: license question

by rubenwardy » Post

Whilst it is possible, it's not recommended for a number of reasons:
  • You can't post anything with an ND license on forums or ContentDB
  • Non-free licenses limit the ability for your mod to be used in collections or to be learned from. See https://freedomdefined.org/Licenses/NC
  • Creative Common licenses are not designed for code, so miss things specific to code and also don't have warranty disclaimers
  • NC licenses will receive limited promotion on ContentDB
ContentDB's policy on non-free licenses can be found here: https://content.minetest.net/help/non_free/

Gundul
Member
Posts: 1221
Joined: Thu Aug 27, 2015 10:55
GitHub: berengma
IRC: Gundul
Location: Europe/Asia
Contact:

Re: license question

by Gundul » Post

rubenwardy wrote:
Sun Nov 29, 2020 20:01
Whilst it is possible, it's not recommended for a number of reasons:


Non-free licenses limit the ability for your mod to be used in collections or to be learned from.
I think it is misleading to call it non-free. If I understood the Creative Commons website right, it only says that your stuff is only for non-commercial (NC) and you do not allow derivates made from it (ND)
As long as you use it and do not mess around with it, it is free. That is pretty much freedom for some
software you do not have to pay for. That should not be called non-free. Source code is also available, only copy
and paste is forbidden. Enough for learning if you really want to. (When I was young you had to type code from computer magazines if you wanted to use it XD )
rubenwardy wrote:
Sun Nov 29, 2020 20:01
Creative Common licenses are not designed for code, so miss things specific to code and also don't have warranty disclaimers
Thanks, that is what I wanted to know.
My servers: Jungle, Lilly in the valley click for my mods

User avatar
rubenwardy
Moderator
Posts: 6431
Joined: Tue Jun 12, 2012 18:11
GitHub: rubenwardy
IRC: rubenwardy
In-game: rubenwardy
Location: United Kingdom
Contact:

Re: license question

by rubenwardy » Post

Not allowing derivatives is one of the most anti-freedom and non-free things you can do with a software license - it prohibits users from even patching bugs when needed. Not being able to do such a thing is toxic and bad for the community, which is why it is banned

From https://content.minetest.net/help/non_free/:
Minetest is free and open source software, and is only as big as it is now because of this. It's pretty amazing you can take nearly any published mod and modify it to how you like - add some features, maybe fix some bugs - and then share those modifications without the worry of legal issues. The project, itself, relies on open source contributions to survive - if it were non-free, then it would have died when celeron55 lost interest.

If you have played nearly any game with a large modding scene, you will find that most mods are legally ambiguous. A lot of them don't even provide the source code to allow you to bug fix or extend as you need.

Limiting the promotion of problematic licenses helps Minetest avoid ending up in such a state. Licenses that prohibit redistribution or modification are completely banned from ContentDB and the Minetest forums. Other non-free licenses will be subject to limited promotion - they won't be shown by default in the client.

Not providing full promotion on ContentDB, or not allowing your package at all, doesn't mean you can't make such content - it just means we're not going to help you spread it.

User avatar
v-rob
Developer
Posts: 832
Joined: Thu Mar 24, 2016 03:19
GitHub: v-rob
IRC: v-rob
Location: Right behind you.

Re: license question

by v-rob » Post

The idea of "free software" is not just that it doesn't cost money (free of cost), but also that you're also free to do what you like with it (things like freedom to use, modify, copy, etc). If it's just free of cost, then you could call it freeware, but not open source/free software. Just wanted to make that distinction of "free".

I can understand why one would like to protect source code by saying no derivatives, but it's really not open source then. Other people can look at it, but they can never touch it or use it in their projects. It's kind of like saying "I have cookies, and you guys can look at them, but you don't get to eat them."

After you get used to the idea, making software open source isn't that bad. Sometimes other people have really good ideas. They can take your code and add on to it in ways you might have never thought of or had time to try. Or maybe you programmed something very useful that others want to incorporate into their code to make it better. So, instead of just having your project and their project, your project can be helping their project, and they can be helping your project. That's not possible unless you're using a true open source license.

I just slap MIT on my code and CC BY-SA on my media files and be done with it. If someone uses my code and doesn't attribute it to me (maybe they just forgot; I've done that), well, how does it hurt me? If someone copies my program and makes it better, how am I the worse for it? I don't lose a thing, but they gain a lot.

Maybe I've convinced you, maybe not. I like open source because I can use other people's stuff, and they can use mine. Most of the fun I have with Minetest is programming, and if I wasn't able to use other people's code, I would have left a long time ago. I only learned how to program at all because of all of Minetest's open source mods. But in the end, it's up to you what you choose, but I hope it's open source. It makes things more fun and useful to everyone, including yourself.

But short answer: CC licenses are not meant for code, but for things like images or models, and using either NC or ND or both has restrictions around here.
GUI Core Developer | My Best Mods: Bridger - Slats - Stained Glass | To contact me, send a PM

Gundul
Member
Posts: 1221
Joined: Thu Aug 27, 2015 10:55
GitHub: berengma
IRC: Gundul
Location: Europe/Asia
Contact:

Re: license question

by Gundul » Post

v-rob wrote:
Mon Nov 30, 2020 19:55
I can understand why one would like to protect source code by saying no derivatives, but it's really not open source then. Other people can look at it, but they can never touch it or use it in their projects. It's kind of like saying "I have cookies, and you guys can look at them, but you don't get to eat them."
I would rather say its is like saying" I have cookies, you guys can look and eat and enjoy, but I won't give you the recipe"
v-rob wrote:
Mon Nov 30, 2020 19:55
After you get used to the idea, making software open source isn't that bad. Sometimes other people have really good ideas. They can take your code and add on to it in ways you might have never thought of or had time to try. Or maybe you programmed something very useful that others want to incorporate into their code to make it better. So, instead of just having your project and their project, your project can be helping their project, and they can be helping your project. That's not possible unless you're using a true open source license.
It isn't always bad at all. I like to be able to read the code and to see what it does. On the other hand I would bite my butt if someone took my code, I invested many many of my rare spare time in, and used it to make money with it.
So far all my code here is LPGLv2.1 or WTFPL, but I am really looking for something which at least prohibits commercial use of my stuff.
I do this solely for fun and self education. So if someone find this useful he may use it and copy, but that's it. :)
My servers: Jungle, Lilly in the valley click for my mods

User avatar
Linuxdirk
Member
Posts: 2734
Joined: Wed Sep 17, 2014 11:21
In-game: Linuxdirk
Location: Germany
Contact:

Re: license question

by Linuxdirk » Post

Gundul wrote:
Mon Nov 30, 2020 17:06
I think it is misleading to call it non-free.
No, it's not, the NC (or ND, or both) clause removes some of your freedom and thus making the license non-free.
Gundul wrote:
Mon Nov 30, 2020 17:06
Source code is also available
Freeness of a project is independent from it's source code being available.

Gundul
Member
Posts: 1221
Joined: Thu Aug 27, 2015 10:55
GitHub: berengma
IRC: Gundul
Location: Europe/Asia
Contact:

Re: license question

by Gundul » Post

Linuxdirk wrote:
Wed Dec 02, 2020 12:33
Gundul wrote:
Mon Nov 30, 2020 17:06
I think it is misleading to call it non-free.
No, it's not, the NC (or ND, or both) clause removes some of your freedom and thus making the license non-free.
Yes it is. You get no 100% freedom, only WTFPL maybe is. So giving up a little part of your freedom to use a good piece of software isn't wrong either.

non-free is misleading and (I say) an other stepstone in censorship of some open source hardliners.
Open minded open source software would be better than ideological warfare.
My servers: Jungle, Lilly in the valley click for my mods

User avatar
philipbenr
Member
Posts: 1783
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2013 01:56
GitHub: philipbenr
IRC: philipbenr
In-game: robinspi
Location: United States

Re: license question

by philipbenr » Post

I see free software as something that you have unrestricted access to use, modify, and redistribute. I'd argue that the ND clause really causes trouble, as you are not allowed to modify, which makes the software (or whatever else being licensed, as software is not really a target of CC...) not free to use. I would also say that not being able to sublicense or distribute would also make the software not free to use. I don't hold the same reservations for commercial use, as I think that's more of a grey area, especially if say government approved non-profits are involved.

There's a significant difference between something like the MIT license (which allows for all the basic redistribution concepts, like modify, distribute, sublicensing, private use, commercial use, etc.) and the CC-NC-ND license (which does not allow modification, sublicensing, commercial use, only distribution). I would argue based on what I've said that the former is a free license whereas the latter is not if it were in regards to software.

In regards to censorship for open-source hardliners, I don't think that is a significant enough problem to warrant the discarding of the label. They can say inflammatory things about a project they don't see as properly free, but it doesn't change the fact that there is some form of access if it is in the grey area. And people who understand that there is more to it than black and white will see past that. I agree that open-minded, open source software would be great, but I don't think we will have that, and intellectual property is too valuable to just make things black and white.

User avatar
Linuxdirk
Member
Posts: 2734
Joined: Wed Sep 17, 2014 11:21
In-game: Linuxdirk
Location: Germany
Contact:

Re: license question

by Linuxdirk » Post

Gundul wrote:
Wed Dec 02, 2020 14:55
Yes it is.
We’re not playing this yes/no/yes/no game. Your statement is bullshit and utterly wrong, and everyone knowing even a little bit about licensing knows that. There is nothing to prove here.
Gundul wrote:
Wed Dec 02, 2020 14:55
You get no 100% freedom, only WTFPL maybe is.
WTFPL was created as joke license and it is highly discouraged to use it because it lacks fundamental licensing information. Use X11 license instead, or Apache 2.0 for larger projects.

User avatar
sirrobzeroone
Member
Posts: 279
Joined: Mon Jul 16, 2018 07:56

Re: license question

by sirrobzeroone » Post

Think I posted this before somewhere and it's just my personal experience but wanted to share :).

What i've found myself is that those people/companies or entities who will ignore a license will ignore no matter what license you apply and do whatever they like. Unless you then have an army of lawyers backing you up good luck getting any recourse especially if it's in another legal jurasication they will simply ignore you.

Those people who use whatever it is you have created and given away 9/10 credit you whether you ask them too or not. There is no need for a license as they will already provide you with credit etc.

So in essence any licence you apply if to restrictive will simply hamstring any decent person who wishes to use your work in the future. This is why you'll notice any graphic, code or whatever I create 100% is normally released as CC0/public domain. I've been around the license merry-go-round and burnt and made the decision that I'd rather make things super easy for the decent folks in the world as they will do right by you and the ones who aren't going to do the right thing simply don't care what licence you apply.

:)

Gundul
Member
Posts: 1221
Joined: Thu Aug 27, 2015 10:55
GitHub: berengma
IRC: Gundul
Location: Europe/Asia
Contact:

Re: license question

by Gundul » Post

Linuxdirk wrote:
Thu Dec 03, 2020 18:31

We’re not playing this yes/no/yes/no game. Your statement is bullshit and utterly wrong, and everyone knowing even a little bit about licensing knows that. There is nothing to prove here.
I am so sorry. I hope you can forgive my eternal dumbness. Because you say so, it must be like this, of course.
My servers: Jungle, Lilly in the valley click for my mods

User avatar
Mantar
Member
Posts: 140
Joined: Thu Oct 05, 2017 18:46

Re: license question

by Mantar » Post

Linuxdirk wrote:
Thu Dec 03, 2020 18:31
WTFPL was created as joke license and it is highly discouraged to use it because it lacks fundamental licensing information.
It also lacks any warranty clause. "do WTF you want" includes "blame the author for any problems and then sue him in court."

User avatar
Mantar
Member
Posts: 140
Joined: Thu Oct 05, 2017 18:46

Re: license question

by Mantar » Post

Gundul wrote:
Wed Dec 02, 2020 14:55
Open minded open source software would be better than ideological warfare.
It would be better if you understood the things you're talking about before you get into a flame war. The right to modify is an essential component of a free software license. Stating that it's not a free software license if it restricts that freedom isn't some zealot attack, it's just stating a fact.
The only freedom a free software license should restrict is the freedom to take those freedoms away from others, and even that's debatable.

Gundul
Member
Posts: 1221
Joined: Thu Aug 27, 2015 10:55
GitHub: berengma
IRC: Gundul
Location: Europe/Asia
Contact:

Re: license question

by Gundul » Post

Mantar wrote:
Fri Dec 04, 2020 18:27
Gundul wrote:
Wed Dec 02, 2020 14:55
Open minded open source software would be better than ideological warfare.
It would be better if you understood the things you're talking about before you get into a flame war.
I did not start anything and understand very well. Foss definition says everything else than foss is called non-free.
So even a CC BY-NC 3.0 is non-free, even though it allows you to do everything but not for commercial use.
CC BY-NC-ND allows you free use but not commercially and no change/use of code.

While the last is already taking a lot of freedom, the first is not. Both still grant you as a user more freedom than most here in minetest will ever use. To call them non-free is only by foss definition and lacks logic in it for my understanding.
You are free in using and even sharing them, the first even only limits commercial use.

But the zealots say, you may not call something free which's foss definition say it is non-free. That is what I call ideological warfare: everything else which is against foss definition must be punished and vanish. This is not what I would call open minded.

[Edit]
Can anyone tell my in detail, or give a link, why exactly CC BY-NC is disencouraged to be used with source code ? I cannot find anything explaining this.
My servers: Jungle, Lilly in the valley click for my mods

User avatar
philipbenr
Member
Posts: 1783
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2013 01:56
GitHub: philipbenr
IRC: philipbenr
In-game: robinspi
Location: United States

Re: license question

by philipbenr » Post

Gundul wrote:
Sat Dec 05, 2020 07:57
To call them non-free is only by foss definition and lacks logic in it for my understanding.
To just repaste something I wrote a bit ago: I would propose that people (myself included) classify free software as something that you have unrestricted access to use, modify, and redistribute. I'd argue that things like the ND clause really causes trouble, as you are not allowed to modify, which makes the software not free software. I personally don't quite hold the same reservations for the NC clause, as I think that's more of a grey area, especially if something like say government approved non-profits are involved.

NOW, before you go off talking about the fact it is still for people to use, that's where the distinction is made. Software that would be licensed under the licenses discussed would be better classified as free to use, rather than free software.
But the zealots say, you may not call something free which's foss definition say it is non-free
Labeling people as zealots who may be trying to explain when you may the one not listening could be construed as inflammatory... I will grant there are people who are zealots. And you also do not have to agree with the labels I proposed above. But you should not call other people not-open minded if you are not open to at least consider where they are coming from.
[Edit]
Can anyone tell my in detail, or give a link, why exactly CC BY-NC is disencouraged to be used with source code ? I cannot find anything explaining this.
I do not think you tried very hard, as simple google search shows this:

https://opensource.stackexchange.com/qu ... d-for-code

Which then links to this:

https://creativecommons.org/faq/#can-i- ... o-software

Gundul
Member
Posts: 1221
Joined: Thu Aug 27, 2015 10:55
GitHub: berengma
IRC: Gundul
Location: Europe/Asia
Contact:

Re: license question

by Gundul » Post

philipbenr wrote:
Sat Dec 05, 2020 08:59


I do not think you tried very hard, as simple google search shows this:

https://opensource.stackexchange.com/qu ... d-for-code

Which then links to this:

https://creativecommons.org/faq/#can-i- ... o-software
Maybe true, I remember that stackexchange once showing up in the google results. No idea why I did not click
on it. Thanks.

[edit]
Now I remember why. This is about if CC BY-SA is an open source license and can be used as one.
I wanted to know if CC BY xxx licenses can be used for source code and if not, why. I am not looking for open source licenses, as I already know CC BY-NC isn't one by definition.
My servers: Jungle, Lilly in the valley click for my mods

Gundul
Member
Posts: 1221
Joined: Thu Aug 27, 2015 10:55
GitHub: berengma
IRC: Gundul
Location: Europe/Asia
Contact:

Re: license question

by Gundul » Post

https://creativecommons.org/faq/#can-i- ... o-software
Can I apply a Creative Commons license to software?

We recommend against using Creative Commons licenses for software. Instead, we strongly encourage you to use one of the very good software licenses which are already available. We recommend considering licenses listed as free by the Free Software Foundation and listed as “open source” by the Open Source Initiative.

Unlike software-specific licenses, CC licenses do not contain specific terms about the distribution of source code, which is often important to ensuring the free reuse and modifiability of software. Many software licenses also address patent rights, which are important to software but may not be applicable to other copyrightable works. Additionally, our licenses are currently not compatible with the major software licenses, so it would be difficult to integrate CC-licensed work with other free software. Existing software licenses were designed specifically for use with software and offer a similar set of rights to the Creative Commons licenses.

Version 4.0 of CC’s Attribution-ShareAlike (BY-SA) license is one-way compatible with the GNU General Public License version 3.0 (GPLv3). This compatibility mechanism is designed for situations in which content is integrated into software code in a way that makes it difficult or impossible to distinguish the two. There are special considerations required before using this compatibility mechanism. Read more about it here.

Also, the CC0 Public Domain Dedication is GPL-compatible and acceptable for software. For details, see the relevant CC0 FAQ entry.

While we recommend against using a CC license on software itself, CC licenses may be used for software documentation, as well as for separate artistic elements such as game art or music.
This part could be made sticky in the forum as it explains a lot.
So there is no problem with CC licenses together with your software as long as you do not plan to be Open Source. And somewhere it could be mentioned that the word free is free by itself and is not solely owned by Open Source people. Same as "non_free" is not always non-free and evil by definition.
My servers: Jungle, Lilly in the valley click for my mods

User avatar
Mantar
Member
Posts: 140
Joined: Thu Oct 05, 2017 18:46

Re: license question

by Mantar » Post

The problem here, as I see it, is primarily that you are using your own definition of "free" and "non-free" rather than the commonly accepted ones used in software licensing, and then insulting people who use those definitions. You're within your rights if you want to use your own definitions of words, but you should at least avoid being so rude about it, and be conscious of the fact that you'll likely cause confusion and irritation in others by holding to your personal definitions.
Beyond that, you say you don't see any value in the freedom to modify, which I find disappointing and a little surprising since the evidence of its worth is all over these forums.

User avatar
philipbenr
Member
Posts: 1783
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2013 01:56
GitHub: philipbenr
IRC: philipbenr
In-game: robinspi
Location: United States

Re: license question

by philipbenr » Post

Mantar wrote:
Sat Dec 05, 2020 17:45
The problem here, as I see it, is primarily that you are using your own definition of "free" and "non-free" rather than the commonly accepted ones used in software licensing, and then insulting people who use those definitions. You're within your rights if you want to use your own definitions of words, but you should at least avoid being so rude about it, and be conscious of the fact that you'll likely cause confusion and irritation in others by holding to your personal definitions.
Beyond that, you say you don't see any value in the freedom to modify, which I find disappointing and a little surprising since the evidence of its worth is all over these forums.
+1
Gundul wrote:
Sat Dec 05, 2020 11:29
And somewhere it could be mentioned that the word free is free by itself and is not solely owned by Open Source people. Same as "non_free" is not always non-free and evil by definition.
Where do you keep getting this idea that everyone thinks non-free software is evil by definition? And that "Open Source people" have commandeered the definition of free? If you are referring to a small, specific subset of "everything-should-be-completely-free-and-open-source" zealots, who hate on everything commercial or private, you are broadly mischaracterizing the larger group. They are a vocal minority (completely ignoring the fact they may have other reasons), there is a much larger, non-vocal majority you are missing.

I think I'm just going to run around in circles if I keep trying to respond to this so I will just leave this last comment here. As I believe is majority view, there are two separate categories of free: Free to use or Freeware which is software one can use for free; and then there is Free software which is software that gives its users the freedom to share, modify, and redistribute it. If you want to know why this definition is this way, I'd suggest going through computer history to learn more about it. There are plenty of resources out there.

Gundul
Member
Posts: 1221
Joined: Thu Aug 27, 2015 10:55
GitHub: berengma
IRC: Gundul
Location: Europe/Asia
Contact:

Re: license question

by Gundul » Post

Mantar wrote:
Sat Dec 05, 2020 17:45
The problem here, as I see it, is primarily that you are using your own definition of "free" and "non-free" rather than the commonly accepted ones used in software licensing, and then insulting people who use those definitions. You're within your rights if you want to use your own definitions of words, but you should at least avoid being so rude about it, and be conscious of the fact that you'll likely cause confusion and irritation in others by holding to your personal definitions.
Beyond that, you say you don't see any value in the freedom to modify, which I find disappointing and a little surprising since the evidence of its worth is all over these forums.
This is leading to nowhere. I did not start insulting, please read from the beginning.
I wasn't rude, not that I would be conscious of, maybe just answering a zealot, which was self defense.
I never stated I see no value in in the freedom to modify, no idea where you got them from. I only said it just
would grant you much more freedom than other software would do.

So what causes confusion and irritation on the one side might do it also on the other. I do not know what you call it,
here we call that filter bubbles.

About history, maybe I missed something out, but I used the internet when most of the world even did not know something exists like the internet.

This is a waste of time, please close.
My servers: Jungle, Lilly in the valley click for my mods

User avatar
Mantar
Member
Posts: 140
Joined: Thu Oct 05, 2017 18:46

Re: license question

by Mantar » Post

Gundul wrote:
Sat Dec 05, 2020 21:43
This is leading to nowhere. I did not start insulting, please read from the beginning.
You used condescending and emotionally charged words and phrases, implying people were close-minded or bigoted for disagreeing with you, which is a passive way of insulting them. Sure, you opened by merely calling the commonly accepted definition "misleading" which is mild enough, but then your very next post jumped straight off to words like "censorship" and "hardliner" and "ideological warfare" which are just picking a fight at that point.

dawgdoc
Member
Posts: 257
Joined: Mon Feb 27, 2017 01:10
GitHub: dawgdoc

Re: license question

by dawgdoc » Post

Gundul wrote:
Sat Dec 05, 2020 07:57

[Edit]
Can anyone tell my in detail, or give a link, why exactly CC BY-NC is disencouraged to be used with source code ? I cannot find anything explaining this.
I've seen it explained as a problem because if a gameplay video is posted on youtube, or other platform that monetizes the video with ads, the player and/or server owner has violated the NC component and is potentially liable.
Give a man a fish, feed him for a day. Give a kid a fish, it's going to die.

Gundul
Member
Posts: 1221
Joined: Thu Aug 27, 2015 10:55
GitHub: berengma
IRC: Gundul
Location: Europe/Asia
Contact:

Re: license question

by Gundul » Post

That is very good. So anyone showing my wildcow mod on youtube has to pay me a part of what he is getting from showing ads. But if showing in his channel for free, showing wildcow mod will be for free also.
My servers: Jungle, Lilly in the valley click for my mods

User avatar
LRV
Helper
Posts: 273
Joined: Mon Dec 19, 2016 17:29
GitHub: Mooncarguy
In-game: Mooncarman Moonvehicleman LunarRovingVehicle LRV Mooncarguy

Re: license question

by LRV » Post

I think most people won't immediatly notice that option and just not review the mod with adds on YouTube.
LRV wrote:
LRV wrote:I got another food mod xtraarmor, of course a customleather item needs to be added, but the chainmaila nd leather armor would be pretty fitting.
Why is there food in my sentence? XD
Why didn't my siganture show up completly til' I did that?

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot] and 4 guests