9

This interpretation is correct. The share-alike clause in other licenses is only relevant to contributions made by others than the original licensor. In fact, the CC-BY-NC 4.0 license does not grant you the right to sub-license the original work at all, as shown in section 2(a)(1) (emphasis mine): Subject to the terms and conditions of this Public ...


6

The OSI makes their position quite clear in the annotated Open Source Definition: 6. No Discrimination Against Fields of Endeavor The license must not restrict anyone from making use of the program in a specific field of endeavor. For example, it may not restrict the program from being used in a business, or from being used for genetic research. Rationale: ...


6

It depends. The type of user itself doesn't matter, at least according to Creative Commons. It is how you use it that matters. From their FAQ: Does my use violate the NonCommercial clause of the licenses? CC's NonCommercial (NC) licenses prohibit uses that are "primarily intended for or directed toward commercial advantage or monetary compensation.&...


5

You are essentially trying to ensure you get some kind of a commercial monopoly on your software when sold as a service. The best license for this use case is the AGPL IMHO. It is not exactly what you are looking for, but no free and open source license would prohibit commercial licensing and offering services. The AGPL does not restrict commercial usage ...


4

Firstly, IANAL/IANYL. That said, Creative Commons says that the NC licence prohibits uses that are "primarily intended for or directed toward commercial advantage or monetary compensation". They go on to note that CC's definition does not turn on the type of user: if you are a nonprofit or charitable organization, your use of an NC-licensed work could ...


4

The article you reference obviously is lacking proper crediting at the minimum. You should contact them so they can fix this alright. You should aslo alert them that they may need a proper authorization (which they may have already) from xkcd for a commercial usage


4

If your application does not rely on those as an integral part and the sound files are not distributed with your application: no issue. Just offers your user the possibility to use whatever sound source they personally are comfortable with, and you're fine; it is also permissible to provide some default sources. The sound files are only data the users work ...


4

Firstly, welcome to OpenSource.SE, and thanks for a very nicely-written first question. I'm aware that not everyone likes it, but it gets a +1 from me. Your basic problem is that free licences are incompatible with restrictions on commercial use. The issue is discussed here, in other OS.SE questions, and in the GPL FAQ, but it boils down to the idea that ...


3

The CC-BY-NC-4.0 license contains a definition of noncommercial in Section 1.i: NonCommercial means not primarily intended for or directed towards commercial advantage or monetary compensation. For purposes of this Public License, the exchange of the Licensed Material for other material subject to Copyright and Similar Rights by digital file-...


3

CC BY-NC is not a permissive license. Neither the FSF nor the OSI approved it, so it’s not a free software license nor an open source license. The reason is the "NC" part: the licensed work may not be used for commercial purposes. CC BY-NC and the other CC licenses aren’t intended for code, so they don’t clarify code-related aspects. This means there is no ...


3

Adding restrictions makes the software less useful for reuse. That is the principal reason. Exactly the same argument speaks against the license proliferation (read Wheeler's "Make your Open Source software GPL-compatible. Or else." for a lucid discussion). In any case, the original author has an advantage over others when it comes to being able to give ...


2

Now as I understand it, this organisation does not need a licence for Highcharts and if I was an employee of this organisation I could just use highcharts to develop a Highcharts enabled website for them. IANAL. But (a) the licensee would normally be the organisation rather than its employers or contract workers. (b) the organisation does need a ...


2

The CC-BY-NC 3.0 license has this to say about non-commercial/commercial use: 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 compensation. — CC-BY-NC 3.0 section 4.b So contrary to the Highcharts FAQ it is not relevant what the ...


2

I suggest you read the Free Software Foundation's essay on selling software. As other commenters have noted, restricting source code to non-commercial use is incompatible with the ideals of Free Software and Open Source. If you object to people "changing a tiny bit and earning money with that", many free and open-source licenses have strong attribution ...


2

Someone are allowed to license their contribution to some CC-BY-NC materials under commercial terms - but they're not allowed to re-license the entire project in this way. This was a lot more difficult than I initially imagined, and cudos to neo who made me see the light :-). Since I am aiming for the Sportsmanship badge, and since I've spent some time on ...


2

Generally, an application and the input to it are two distinct works for copyright and they can be licensed independently of each other. If your application reads the dataset from a file and doesn't really care what dataset it reads as long as the structure is correct, then the application and dataset are definitely separate, independent works. The simple ...


2

[mandatory disclaimer: I am not a lawyer] Let's start with the easy part - any usage of a CC-BY-NC piece must include proper attribution, so the video would have to include such attribution (presumably in the end credits?) The tricky part is interpreting the Non-Commercial part of the license. First, as the CC wiki states: NonCommercial turns on the use,...


1

I think apsillers has already done an excellent job of answering your main point, but I must take you up on a lesser one. I am already aware of https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/selling.en.html but it does seem really rather dated now. I can't agree. The idea of selling distribution media to cover your costs seems dated now, but here's the thing: it always ...


1

I'm not sure how you're expecting the answer to this to be anything other than "don't do it". It's clear from the question that you know you're not allowed to do it. We're not the current rights holder, so we can't say whether or not the rights holder would feel aggrieved enough to pursue you through the courts. But free software licences have generally ...


Only top voted, non community-wiki answers of a minimum length are eligible