Post 816434 by zipheir@functional.cafe
 (DIR) More posts by zipheir@functional.cafe
 (DIR) Post #816434 by zipheir@functional.cafe
       2018-10-27T18:19:01Z
       
       0 likes, 0 repeats
       
       Non-commercial licenses continue to be stupid and unclear. This is a particularly terrible example (https://licensezero.com/licenses/prosperity). What is "a manner directed toward commercial advantage"? Some countries believe this means anything beyond personal use (https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20140326/11405526695/german-court-says-creative-commons-non-commercial-licenses-must-be-purely-personal-use.shtml). Again, this is a poor one, but what do people believe that they gain by including 'non-commercial' language in licenses? #foss
       
 (DIR) Post #816435 by kmicu@mastodon.social
       2018-10-28T11:03:00Z
       
       0 likes, 0 repeats
       
       @zipheir Almost all licenses are ambiguous. E.g. (A)GPL is unclear on purpose and by design (that was stated by RMS and Bradley M. Kuhn) and over the time proprietary endeavors tested in court where is the real boundary.I wouldn’t jump to ‘stupid and unclear’ conclusion right away.In this case folks can sell more exceptions exactly because the legal situation is unclear.
       
 (DIR) Post #851524 by zipheir@functional.cafe
       2018-10-30T04:19:04Z
       
       0 likes, 0 repeats
       
       @kmicu Good point—the actual meanings of licenses are established by courts. Which means that people should understand, when picking a license, that it may not mean what it seems to mean. This is not a good reason to be vague, or to say your license does things it does not. And while the GPL is certainly more complicated than ISC and friends, it doesn't get into the huge mess of defining what constitutes commercial use, which, in many countries, is not legally defined.
       
 (DIR) Post #856730 by kmicu@mastodon.social
       2018-10-30T12:54:34Z
       
       0 likes, 0 repeats
       
       @zipheir when our goal is to sell exceptions then ‘the huge mess/not-legally-defined’ is a good thing: “You are not sure, well then buy an exception from me (because consulting lawyers or going to court will cost you more)”.(L)GPL avoids non-commercial mess but has another one: what constitutes linking/derivative work has purposely an ambiguous definition to force proprietary folks to err on GPL’s side.In other words: All hope abandon ye who enter here ― licensing topic.
       
 (DIR) Post #862672 by zipheir@functional.cafe
       2018-10-30T18:34:04Z
       
       0 likes, 0 repeats
       
       @kmicu Indeed, the whole topic is really good for starting insane debates. (Static vs. dynamic linking and LGPL compliance, anyone?) The upshot is, in the words of Al Viro, “choose a license of thine liking for sofware thou writest and do not blame those who choose differently for software they write.”
       
 (DIR) Post #862784 by kmicu@mastodon.social
       2018-10-30T18:39:43Z
       
       0 likes, 0 repeats
       
       @zipheir beautiful quote. 👍
       
 (DIR) Post #863094 by zipheir@functional.cafe
       2018-10-30T18:50:00Z
       
       0 likes, 0 repeats
       
       @kmicu Full quote here, pasted from cat-v.org: https://paste.debian.net/1049773/