Timeline for Links to authoritative discussion of why not to add non-commercial clauses to otherwise free/open licenses?
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
4 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mar 6, 2020 at 10:48 | comment | added | MikeBeaton | (For the very first part of my comment, I might add: and/or negotiate to pay them a percentage of any money I actually got from commercial use!) | |
| Mar 6, 2020 at 10:43 | comment | added | MikeBeaton | If anyone else offered anything which was already under the type of license under discussion, then yes, I would have to negotiate and pay them. For entirely new PRs there'd need to be a contributor agreement whereby they sign rights over to the project, understanding that the project then makes money of it and they don't. That may be considered unreasonable. Or not. I feel I wouldn't consider it unreasonable if the tool I'm talking about (which REALLY isn't mine) had that model and I committed a small change to make my life easier, even with a tool that I as a commercial user was paying for. | |
| Mar 6, 2020 at 10:18 | comment | added | bobsburner | Important to remember that even if you plan on making yourself "exempt" from the non-commercial part of your license, any source code contributions from other users, under your own license couldn't be used by you. | |
| Mar 5, 2020 at 23:49 | history | answered | vonbrand | CC BY-SA 4.0 |