There are no open-source licenses that forbid selling copies of the software, because that kind of restriction is not allowed in a license that is recognized as an open-source license by the community/FSF/OSI.
However, there are open-source licenses that make the business model of selling copies of the software very unattractive. These licenses are strong ...
The CC ShareAlike terms merely say that whenever you do make a derivative work of the image, distribution of that derivative work must be under ShareAlike (or CC-approved ShareAlike-compatible) terms. The relevant unsettled question is exactly when a derivative work is created, which lies in the domain of copyright law, not the license terms.
No, it’s not allowed.
It says on the license summary page:
No additional restrictions — You may not apply legal terms or technological measures that legally restrict others from doing anything the license permits.
And in the license:
For Licensed Material (i.e., the unmodified work):
No downstream restrictions. You may not offer or impose any additional ...
The CC NC clause is really hard to get a grasp on, and Creative Commons do not provide much guidance about it.
There certainly exists a lot of examples where it is not possible to give a straightforward about exactly what is commercial use. For an example of such a situation, see my answer to this question: Using CC-NC material inside a freemium app.
One of the problems with CC NC is that when you say "I am not sure what "Commercial purposes" are", you are not alone in that.
The relevant clause in CC BY-NC 3.0 reads
You may not exercise any of the rights granted to You in Section 3 above in any manner that is primarily intended for or directed toward commercial advantage or private monetary ...
Unless I've completely misunderstood the question, that would be violating two of the Creative Commons license's restrictions:
That it can only be used in non-commercial contexts
That any derivative works be licensed under the same license
I really don't know how you thought you could use CharacterController2D in a commercial closed-source app! That's the ...
No, the GNU GPL license and any of the Creative Commons Non-Commercial licenses are incompatible. The Non-Commercial licenses meet neither the Free Software Definition nor the Open Source Definition.
Here's what the GPL License Compatibility list says about CC-BY-NC:
This license does not qualify as free, because there are restrictions on charging money ...
The arXiv papers themselves are published without a license, meaning all rights are reserved. However, this only affects the paper as a creative works, and it does not affect the content of the paper, for example any methods or algorithms outlined in the paper: knowledge and information cannot be copyrighted.
Inventions can be patented though. Just because ...
The Open Source Definition and also the Free Software Foundation specifically insist that no restrictions on use are allowed. The FSF even encourages making money off software, as long as the license terms are followed.
What you describe is definitely against the definition of open source.
In jurisdictions with sui generis database rights (primarily the UK and EU):
This is almost certainly infringement, either of copyright or of the database right. Creative Commons 4.0 licenses explicitly include database rights, meaning that there is no problem with applying them to word lists and similar compilations of information, in jurisdictions that ...
I don't think it does.
Our top-rated answer on the problems with using CC licences for software identifies the issue: the CC licences have no concept of source code, that is, the underlying digital protoform of a work, which allows generation of new, perfect copies. In the case of your booklets, that's the PDF form, and the CC licences make no mention of ...
The ShareAlike licenses (version 4) use this definition to describe what exactly is subject to the ShareAlike requirements:
[Section 1(a)] Adapted Material means material subject to Copyright and Similar Rights that is derived from or based upon the Licensed Material and in which the Licensed Material is translated, altered, arranged, transformed, or ...
The CC-BY-NC-SA does not inherently forbid usage in apps. However, usage in apps will be quite difficult:
the use must be non-commercial, as defined in the license
the license disallows more restrictive terms to be added
in particular, the license forbids DRM
Such requirements can easily clash with an app store's guidelines and terms which have their own ...
If someone asks you to print the model then you are likely in the clear. The 2nd and 9th circuit courts have decided that a non-commercial entity can contract a for profit entity to make their copy, and as long as the entity doing the copying is working within their normal parameters, they are not using the work commercially.
So you definitely can't sell ...
This takes us on another visit to Drauglis v. Kappa Map Group, that being some of the only guiding jurisprudence we have on the question of derivative works and CC licences. Note that is not a binding judgement anywhere, but as courts tend to follow each other unless they see good reasons not to, it gives us some idea of how other courts might approach the ...
There are three kinds of people to consider
the ignorant, who believe that because your content is available at no cost, they have the freedom to use it as they like
the dishonest, who know how copyright works but just don't care and do what they want anyway
the honest, who know and care about copyrights
For the first two categories, it doesn't really ...
Yes this kind of licensing is probably allowed, but no, you likely cannot use the software for commercial purposes.
The Apache 2.0 license only applies to that component itself. It is a permissive license that allows combination with software under other licenses, even if that license is copyleft or proprietary. All the Apache license requires is that ...
I'd consider that a license violation to use CC BY-NC licensed material in such way. The CC BY-NC license says already in its name that the licensed content must not be used in commercial context.
There exist a study from CC which gives general interpretation of the NC clause as
On a scale of 1-100 where 1 is “definitely noncommercial” and 100 is “...
As you point out, it is not entirely clear if a CV would be NON-COMMERCIAL in this case. I would tend to think that the intent of the author of this template is to prohibit commercial copycats of the web site templates on another template web site but this is not made clear on the web site.
Rather, this website is designed to make LaTeX easy for the ...
CC BY-NC-SA has three requirements:
Attribution is very easy to fulfil. ShareAlike is a copyleft-like mechanism but only activates if you perform an adaptation, that is if you modify the work. If you are including code examples verbatim then you aren't adapting.
The real problem is the NC clause. You ...
I contacted the author directly. They said that it is OK to use the code commercially as long as it is used as part of a compiled and closed source greater project. It is not allowed to sell his actual code stand alone or as part of another code base.
So the code cannot be sold, but you might be able to obtain a different license from the copyright owner.
As curiousdannii said licenses do not apply to the original author since they are defining the terms of the re-use of the creations. The author always able to release (or re-release) his/her own work using any license, or no license, or no permissions at all. (But when something is released under a non-revokable license then the author have no way to forbid ...
You can try SNCL.
CAN: Distribute, modify
CANNOT: Commercial use, hold liable, use trademark
MUST: Include copyright, include notice, include license and give credit.
Source: Simple non code license (SNCL)
As the output document gets created by an automated process, there is not enough creative work in the creation of that document to make it copyrightable in its own right. The output document can only be licensed under the combination of licenses that cover the documentation source and the code snippets.
This means license  will be a combination of ...
Ryan, your comment actually was the answer:
They won't be making derivatives of it, but using it in the creation of their own works.
The license is about the use, reproduction and distribution of the schema and not something it has touched. If the result neither contains the schema nor contains parts of it then the licensing will not apply to them.
(As an ...
All of this is entirely unclear. The NonCommercial clause is intent-based, and relies on a concept of ”commercial advantage“ that is not further defined.
Arguably, a NC-licensed work can be provided free of charge but still for a commercial purpose, e.g. if a CC-BY-NC-SA licensed photograph is used on an advertisement.
That the covered work is also available ...
IANAL/IANYL, but your presumption is wrong; the output of a program is not generally subject to the licence of the program. Instead, the output data are generally considered a derivative of the input data.
So in this case, as long as the input data aren't subject to any kind of restrictive licence, you should indeed be able to download a copy of the Apache-...
Taking a word out of a dictionary is like taking a music note out of a music work. Of course the license still applies.
If anything, it might prove the willful infringement, and that can bring triple damages with it.
(Note that CC BY-NC-SA 4.0 is not an open source license.)
If users contribute (pull requests) to a work (your wiki) licensed under CC BY-NC-SA 4.0, they convey:
You can use this contribution under the terms of the license CC BY-NC-SA 4.0.
So yes, if you share their contributions, you may not do this in a commercial way. You can only ignore the license ...
Does it mean that the CC BY-NC-SA applies only to the book and its code examples, or it means that my whole project will have to be released under CC BY-NC-SA?
The way I read the "copyleft" terms of this CC license I would consider this to apply only to the book and its code examples that were originally licensed under the CC BY-NC-SA license.
Even if my ...