Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike better than GNU GPL ?
rizaa - October 20, 2008 - 14:21
Do you feel 1024 Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike license is or will be better than the GNU GPL for most of the non-rich not-strictly-devs Drupel users ?
Some CMSes seem to be actively adopting 1024 the Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike for example http://www.1024cms.com/index.php?p=viewpost&id=24
Can a fork of Drupal release itself under the license ? If there is no such provision can GNU be letter-requested to implement such provision ? Rules do change over times. What can be the pros and cons ?
[Edited by Admin: This thread has been locked. Please see: this comment below.]
The nominal differences, at
The nominal differences, at least, seem to be that GNU:
- Does not require attribution
- Does not require noncommercial use or distribution (although, whoever gets a copy is licensed to do the same, commercially or not). This is a pretty big difference.
- Does require "share-alike" -- derivatives are covered by the same license.
The FSF license compatibility list (http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/index_html) lists a similar CC license (one without the "noncommercial" part) as incompatible. Not sure about the reasoning, but that usually happens when a license provides a way to escape from some GNU provision.
Does not require
Does not require noncommercial use
Isn't this a pretty good thing ?
Every license has its place.
Every license has its place. If you look around here, you will notice that many key contributors have an interest in running a Drupal-based business, and most do Drupal consulting work or build Drupal sites for businesses, and that's their main interest in Drupal.
So opensource php scripts
So opensource php scripts actually have 2 class of users
those with money who enjoys or uses 'business'
those with 'Noncommercial-Share Alike license' - ideal for the 'poor'
GNU actually widening the rich-poor divide !
I'd say that doing business,
I'd say that doing business, or working for a business, is one way for the poor to make a living (and also for the rich to get richer).
And on weekends then can spend some time to build their personal site or one for their buddies for free, licensing the content under CC.
But this project here has been built mostly on work of professionals who needed the stuff.
I meant those who cannot
I meant those who cannot afford money are stuck with "lesser" or "poorer" services.
CMSes released under Noncommercial-Share Alike license have apparently no such chances or issues.
If a CMS becomes indeed as good as Drupal over the years and is yet Non-commercial , guess who will rule the hearts.
Comparison with Linux is lame as OS is different ball-game and there are hardly even 5 or 6 OS in maximum usage while originally php scripting was fun and passion ( and not a means to earn money ) and thus at least more than hundreds of CMS scripts were born and at least more than two dozens are in maximum usage.
It is encouraging to note that some of them have noticed the EVIL and exploits in GNU and adpopting for Noncommercial-Share Alike license.
Amen brother. But you must
Amen brother. But you must concede that in the world there are also some ordinary folks who want to work together to make tools for their day job.
This license would
This license would disenfranchise those of us who do development for Drupal. In other worlds, you, the 'poor' get to use Drupal all you like for free, you get to take advantage of our work, which we get to find ways to get paid for. All I can see is that you want to both use our work AND make sure we can't get paid for our work. Thanks, but that sounds like it's not in the best interests of any open source project to me.
-- Merlin
[Point the finger: Assign Blame!]
[Read my writing: ehalseymiles.com]
[Read my Coding blog: Angry Donuts]
As I said PHP scripting was
As I said PHP scripting was born more out of passion and fun rather than as
a job employment exchange !
Drupal came free to you - if you are developing something out of it and earning you are not paying anything to Drupal monetarily. We enjoy PHP as it came 'free' in both senses of the term and none of the devs need pay to the PHP foundation. LOL.
The users who use the scripts, bug tests day after day and give usabilty feedbacks do not expect money. You the 'non-poor' and 'employed' developer enjoy immensely the benefit of that. In not very old days the scripters and users thus mutually benefited each other - Money was thrown in and that's spoiler in this eco cycle!! - I hope those CMSes who are releasing under Noncommercial-Share Alike are not going outside the scope of 'best interests'. May their tribe increase!
(Hmmm ... @merlinofchaos, so you write songs. Excellent ones those, really. Code for the community is like that. Make it free, make it enjoyable. Do you earn from those songs or novels ? Want to earn money - sell your a## to big corporates! Do coding for them. Everybody needs a living. Drupal to me ( since I saw it from version 1) was more of that 'song', fun, passion. Question is - to whom Drupal belongs now ? Acquia is what you are aiming and speaking about ! )
I won't quibble about PHPs
I won't quibble about PHPs commercial presence and whether it has any significance or not, because it is beyond the point.
The point is that, in the world, there are people who contribute to a project taking a break from their day jobs (which they may hate or not), and there are people who contribute to a project as an integral part of their day job.
They exist, many of them wouldn't spend nearly as much time and effort in a project unrelated to their job, they can't be put to prison for that choice, and they often do need a relevant licence. No matter how... compelling your vision is, acknowledge their existence.
It is a big world, and there are projects and licenses for everyone.
Yes I acknowledge :-). And I
Yes I acknowledge :-). And I hope you acknowledge the other way round too :-)
I am not disputing/banning 'money' in opensource for community (not corporates) but rather 'discussing' it.
I guess I am alone here but some cms-es are picking up the clue.
The other thing in discussion : how Drupal has changed its colors and which 'big world' it is now serving. There is no blaming but just pondering and thought sharing of the GREAT shift!
You may argue that is how it happens - small fishes gradually become big fishes one day or are swallowed by big fishes.
Question was can there be a sparkle of difference from the norm ?
As I said PHP scripting was
Yes, that's right! I pour THOUSANDS OF HOURS into developing for Drupal. I should be GRATEFUL to you that you are using MY WORK for FREE and providing USABILITY FEEDBACK (wait, where is this feedback?).
I call BULLSHIT. I'm not asking you to pay for my time, but I like to think that the YEARS of effort I've put into Drupal are worth something. And they are. Under the license agreement you propose, they would not be, and so the end result is YOU WOULD NOT GET MY CODE. What you suggest would disenfranchise THE VERY PEOPLE who are providing you all this free code. Why do you not understand that? You want something for nothing and you want to make sure that the people who give it to you can't get anything either!
-- Merlin
[Point the finger: Assign Blame!]
[Read my writing: ehalseymiles.com]
[Read my Coding blog: Angry Donuts]
I pour THOUSANDS OF HOURS
That is exactly how you got PHP and Drupal! THOUSANDS OF HOURS of works of others. FREE !
In case you missed please look at the bug reports, issue lists and innumerable non-commercial usres who pay hosts to host drupal. Its the community who gives the feedback, do not make personal attacks.
http://www.1024cms.com/index.php?p=viewpost&id=24 - They are giving the code. We are getting the code. And they are not GNU
I do not understand what makes you so angry. No one is going to take away your money. Not even me. In fact I will donate some :--) if you can solve some Drupal riddles for me :
How do I make a bottom or rather middle sticky post
How do I arrange articles just as I wish instead of alpha , date or random
How do I not receive PM from an user I am ignoring
How to make Views not eat up resources for the poor shared hostees
I thank you for the Views, in case I missed it. I express my gratitude. I do not know about its birth . Was it done for a commercial end and then contributed back to the community? Or was it born just out of love or some lovely needs ?
Guess what, even if not, I wish for the second. Who can stop wishes!
As I said PHP scripting was
Tell Rasmus Lerdorff (guy who wrote PHP in case you missed that) that Yahoo! shouldn't be paying him for his efforts.
I hope the 'you' in there doesn't mean me personally, but rather an ambiguous 'you' that isn't someone who actually contributes significantly to Drupal.
Your license would prevent me from doing exactly that, since Drupal would be non-commercial and therefore not usable by a corporate. So instead I'd be coding something else for someone else, and you wouldn't get to use my code.
People like you make me wish that I could add an "Except for people with an entitlement complex" to the 'free' provisions of open source.
-- Merlin
[Point the finger: Assign Blame!]
[Read my writing: ehalseymiles.com]
[Read my Coding blog: Angry Donuts]
Tell Rasmus Lerdorff (guy
Rasmus dejected by Perl created PHP, he did not make PHP after being payed by Yahoo. Did he?
Did you care to read at all what I wrote?
That was my entire idea - a cms born out of love and maintained by love ( while earn by doing x jobs for corporates )
You are looking at Drupal as your moneypot while I was reminding of Drupal ver 1 and 2 days,days of free poetry and song
Its not you. Its faceless and MASS you who actually contributes and equally contributes to the spread and growth of Drupal without expecting for money in return.
Yes, it will prevent you from selling Drupal but open up wider avenues of selling your coding skills of your own not stuck by limited and hard coded frontiers of Drupal. You can even work for Acquia.
Will you not drool at the idea of earning more and not just stuck by Drupal?
You can submit wishlist to scripts like http://www.1024cms.com/index.php?p=viewpost&id=24 to abandon and ask Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike license to vanish. That will be a better idea. If those are not there users like me will not get the chance to annoy you :-)
Why would I give a crap
Why would I give a crap about 1024cms?
Please, go use their software. I'd prefer you not use mine. Really. Unfortunately, GPL doesn't let me put the 'no asshat' exclusion in, so you get ot use it anywa.
And please stop accusing me of selling Drupal. I don't know why you keep harping back at me like I am. Have I ever asked you for a penny? Is there even a way for you to get pennies to me? No there isn't. In fact, here, I want to put two quotes together:
And this:
First, pot, kettle, black. You've opened up the personal attacks.
Second, let me clarify: I don't have a site running Drupal that makes money. I don't personally use Drupal in any way shape or form. I am a major contributor to Drupal, you yourself have admitted you use my software. You keep telling me this or that about what I do with Drupal, but you obviously don't know jack shit about what I do, you're just making an assumption.
You want a license that prevents commercial use of the software. That license would take away all the money that makes my contributions possible. If that were the case, things like Views would not exist. Why? Because if nobody can make money with Drupal, nobody is going to INVEST money in Drupal. And if nobody invested money in Drupal, I would have a different job, working on something that doesn't allow me to contribute what I do.
Now, you've got some weird argument about rich and poor, which makes no sense to me. As near as I can tell, you're actually bitching that you've got this great piece of software called Drupal but it's worthless to you because you can't resell it, and you are mad because you can't make any money off of it so why should anyone else? Either that or you're just an idiot stirring up the pot. Either way, this conversation has been a waste of time.
Please do me a favor. Go uninstall all copies of my software. You don't deserve them.
-- Merlin
[Point the finger: Assign Blame!]
[Read my writing: ehalseymiles.com]
[Read my Coding blog: Angry Donuts]
Omigosh !! It was a
Omigosh !! It was a 'general' you, and nothing at you specifically. And with due respect to you, I did not start any attack but answered those directed at me :-)
>> nobody is going to INVEST money in Drupal
Drupal was not born out of 'money investments' as far as I know. Similarly some one else would have brought views or something lesser than this or greater than this. Thats how it happens.
See simply put I have perhaps no objection to some people making some money out of the efforts and labors of others. But if someone or some corp. is making money out of massive contribs of a massive number of persons over years, who are not necessarily doing any earning from their contribs or related services but play a major role in code-contribs( like you ) , I feel that these persons deserve some money back either as royaltee or whatever you call them. Opensource getting commercialized to monstrous is relatively a new happening as well as GNU GPL lics are relatively new and not yet fully bug tested. Non-comm lic cuts off these indiscriminate earning by a few - whether this is good or bad time can tell, and whether lic-s need further clauses we will see as these evolve.
I am really not interested in making money. But I come from days where any one could get any module (or similar stuff) in a friendly environ without the need to pay and even if payments were there there was no overly disproportionate earning by handful few at the expense of others.
[BTW : > Go uninstall all copies of my software.
Does views have a proper uninstaller ? I mean the db stuff may get removed but the files, folders ?
I mean you meant uninstalling, not deleting ?
Though I appreciate and admire Views I actually have not used it as it has some serious resource consumption issues in most shared hosting environs. So dont worry :-) ]
There is nothing to attack you personally, and in arguments-counter arguments 'you' comes in a more generic sense. If you have understood the spirit of what I mean to say, then good. If not then my apologies. My sinceremost apologies.
...but that sounds like
or me either-- imo if there were a 'noncommercial' clause (regardless of the license) in the original drupal project it simply would not be the amazing high-quality 10lb gorilla CMS it is today, no way.
===
"Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish and you feed him for a lifetime." - Lao Tzu
"God helps those who help themselves." - Ben Franklin
"Search is your best friend." - Worldfallz
While infact Drupal ( as
While infact the original Drupal ( as well as original php) was born out of non-commercial grounds.
Contributors contributed as there was no demand of money like microsoft.
Read the wall, read the wind, read the changes and then decide whether to rest on the 'laurels', perhaps ?
The movement for 'Non-commercial' is gaining momentum. Future will tell what will be what.
In the meantime, it may be a delicious idea to make the hay ( those who can make it ) while the sun shines ;-)
true but taking it from
true but taking it from dries' hobby to the enterprise level product it is now simply would not have happened at the speed it has, if at all, if it had been marginalized to a non-commercial use project only.
===
"Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish and you feed him for a lifetime." - Lao Tzu
"God helps those who help themselves." - Ben Franklin
"Search is your best friend." - Worldfallz
I know I am late to the
@rizaa
I know I am late to the conversation. I have read some posts before discussing the licensing of the Drupal project.
I guess I just don't understand the point. You are correct that PHP was born out of non-commercial grounds. Yet I have (and many others too) produced code that I made money from, be it for a job I was employed at or as a sale to a client via a contract. I have also used PHP to produce code that I used personally for no monetary gain.
I have never been contacted by anyone associated with the PHP project with a demand for money. I have never heard of anyone who has been contacted by anyone associated with the PHP project with a demand for money. As long as you follow the terms of the license I do not believe it will ever happen.
This brings me to the Drupal project. I have produced Drupal sites from which I have obtained monetary gain, both as an employee and as a contractor (self employed). I have also produced Drupal sites for personal use with no monetary gain. Many others have done the same. I have never been contacted by anyone associated with the Drupal project with a demand for money. I have never heard of anyone who has been contacted by anyone associated with the Drupal project with a demand for money. As long as you follow the terms of the license I do not believe it will ever happen.
It seems to me by not having a non-commercial clause in the license used by Drupal we get to use Drupal for basically anything we want as long as we do not violate the license of that Drupal is released under.
I am no lawyer but I think it goes something like this:
I can write a module or code or a theme etc... that uses or interfaces with Drupal and I don't have to give it to anyone so long as I am the only one who uses it (in other words I don't distribute it in any form).
I can write a module or code or a theme etc... that uses or interfaces with Drupal and charge someone for it, thereby distributing it. At this point I can not restrict what they do with it including their ability to distribute it free of charge. Since I distributed the work (code, module, theme, etc...) they can do whatever they want with it, but they are not required to re-distribute it nor am I.
Nowhere in the GPL have I ever read that the original license holder could ever contact me and demand any thing from me provided I followed the rules laid out in the license, which I have basically described above.
So my question is: Since you can basically do whatever you want with Drupal. why does it matter to you how it is licensed?
> Since you can basically do
> Since you can basically do whatever you want with Drupal. why does it matter to you how it is > licensed?
It does not matter to you or anyone who earns money. It matters to those who have not enough money but unnecessary drools at others having money :/
It is the same class who enriched Drupal from version 1 to 2 and from 2 to 3 forward and later found that there is a great divide : service-purchasable by money and service-not-purchasable by money.
They cannot do whatever they want with Drupal unless they have chunks of money ( but which they could almost when Drop was just, say, version 2 )
Then came the Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike license and cms-es like 1024
http://www.1024cms.com/index.php?p=viewpost&id=24 started developing. Who knows whether they will surpass Drupal and how many Robin Hoods will be there in the contributor team and community.
Blame them for this post.
In the meanwhile, it really not matters, keep on earning your money :--)
Oh I see you started this
Oh I see you started this thread to advertise for another CMS system. How stupid of me not to realize until now.
I do not have chunks of money that is one of the reasons I use drupal. I do not have chunks of money that is one of the reasons I use PHP. I do not have chunks of money that is one of the reasons I use a free text editor to do my coding and a free ftp client to transfer my files.
I taught myself PHP quite a few years ago. I did not pay anyone to train me (that means I did not spend chunks of money). I taught myself how to use drupal with the help of this site, the API site and the users of this site (once again I did not spend chunks of money).
Every site I have ever created could have been created by the person(s) that I created it for without them spending any chunks of money. The only thing they would have had to spend was the time necessary to gain the same knowledge I have. That knowledge is obtainable for free. Using google is free (but they make chunks of money, hmmm). All you have to do is search on google (thats how I did it) and you can learn everything I know. I fully admit that all I know about web sites, drupal, php, w3c standards, css, javasript and many other web and internet stuff was all plagiarized from other people, all given to me freely without chunks of money over the last 10 years.
Your pathetic attempt to discredit drupal and promote this other CMS based on your "chunks of money theory" is exactly that, PATHETIC. You are a doing a disservice to this other CMS by associating yourself with it in any way. Now maybe I am naive but I doubt there are many drupal users cruising the forums of other CMS system trying to get people to switch to drupal by bashing that particular system.
As a final note, I encourage you to keep spamming this site with your rhetoric. If you do it in the right way, it won't be long before you are banned and then we won't have to deal with you any longer.
I fully admit that all I
So what about making Drupal something like w3c standards or html ? :--)
I am not advertising any cms - feel free to remove the link of that cms, and how can I advertise for something non-commercial ? ( BTW : plagiarized? was that a bad joke? or you think it was plagiarized? please do not use all these then, ok? )
If the first reaction to a discussion spark is :: NO, we won't see any pros in it, NO NO NO ::
then there is no point in discussion.
If you feel like its spam feel free to ban or ignore. You can earn money and bash me but not create another PHP or Drupal. My whole idea of saying all these was that.
And better not to speak of the EVIL google. They do not give their service for free. You are 'selling' your personal data, likes, dislikes to them and crores of moneys worth of datamining business is centered around it.
And advertsing : I am not advertising for Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-Share - Do they need my advertisement ? You can express your concerns to them too, if you like.
I am not sure what your
I am not sure what your actual problem is with Drupal's GPL license. You keep claiming that "poor" people do not get to use drupal the way I do because somehow I have money to spend that they do not. I am not sure why you are so upset that I (and others) took the time to find ways to make money with what we have learned. Maybe you lost your job or you can't find one, I don't know.
Yes it was a joke. I have learned many things in my time on this earth and I frequently use that knowledge and even tell it to others without providing proper documentation as to where I obtained it.
I have no power to ban you. I might ignore you.
If you don't like Drupal or the way it is licensed don't use it. I am very certain nobody is forcing you to.
If you think google is EVIL don't use it. I am very certain nobody is forcing you to. However, I am also certain there is no such thing as a public search engine that does not engage in the activities that you accuse google of, so have fun typing random url's into your browser trying to find information you are looking for.
If you are not advertising for another CMS then stop posting about it in your comments.
If someone has demanded money from you for the use of Drupal I would actually like to hear about it. I doubt that you can truthfully provide anything on that though.
If you knew anything about software licenses then you would have known that since all versions of Drupal are based on code from previous versions the license used for drupal can essentially never be changed as that is one of the restrictions of virtually all software licenses. So your entire suggestion of a fork of the Drupal project under a new license is impossible without re-coding the entire system from scratch using nothing that even remotely resembles the original code.
If that is what you want you can do that for free and no chunks of money required. Just fire up your favorite text editor and start coding yourself a CMS and you can license it anyway you like. Otherwise if you understand the previous paragraph, then there is really no discussion that can take place on the licensing of Drupal that is not meaningless at this point.
"Rules do change over
"Rules do change over times"
Dont they ? I have no problems.
This forum is called 'Discussions'
If you find discussion is meaningless you are free not to attend it. If you have
some problems with the CC licence you can ask for a ban on that.
And 'Nobody' is forcing you either to use Non-commercial lic or to part with your money. Are you not happy :--)
However, I am also certain
I have been using Ixquick for a couple of years, and they are great, and a metacrawler too. From their Privacy Information:
"You have a right to privacy.
Your search data should never fall into the wrong hands.
The only real solution is deleting your data.
We delete our users' privacy data within 48 hrs.
We are the first and only search engine to do so.
Our initiative is receiving an overwhelmingly positive response!"
I do not have any affiliation with Ixquick, except as a user, and would mention other similar good search engines, if I was aware of them.
""While a number of
""While a number of companies share some of these negative elements, none comes close to achieving status as an endemic threat to privacy [as Google does]"" - from A Consultation report by Privacy International
The report also says:
The true difference between Google Inc and Microsoft Corp can be defined not so much by the data practices and privacy policies that exist between the two organizations, but by the corporate ethos and leadership exhibited by each. Five years ago Microsoft could reasonably be described as a fundamental danger to privacy. In more recent times the organization appears to have adopted a less antagonistic attitude to privacy, and has at least structurally adjusted to the challenge of creating a privacy-friendly environment.
Thanks aufumy for pointing out the link. I did not want to start another "Google sucks" thread. I have been using Ixquick and their results are good indeed. Ixquick does show there can be a start to good things and thats a fact.
It does not matter to you or
Why? We call get to use the same tools, features, modules, themes. It does not matter.
Licensing Drupal under a non-commercial type licence would be the kiss-off-death. I and most other devs would simply be forced to walk away from the project in order to earn our daily bread somewhere else. We may love Drupal, but love alone will not put food on the table for my family.
If it were not for my commercial gain from Drupal & the current licence, the two 100% volunteer projects I have built websites for (both supporting NGO's in the poorest African nations) would not be possible. Both these sites could be deemed commercial, since they collect donations and charge for some services.
Could you please explain to my African friends why you think they shouldn't have access to this technology, simply because you have an axe to grind?
I am not sure that I am
I am not sure that I am clear about your request : what am I supposed to do with your African friends.
I am also not sure I know : if you had to pay $3000 to purchase Drupal at the first place to use it whether you would have chosen Drupal as your earning source. Are you getting to see what I mean?
If not, no point in going round and round.
You please continue your earning as well as your good works, no problem.
I posted this above but it
I posted this above but it is rather buried in a larger post and not so clear, so I repost it here very clearly for you and quoting you.
Please provide evidence of someone demanding you pay any amount of money, let alone $3000, to use drupal. I for one am very interested in seeing any evidence you can provide on this. I am fairly sure that there many others who would be most interested in seeing this evidence also. If you can provide said evidence you will find me a most reliable partner in your fight against injustice. However as I am sure you can not provide it, you are now teetering on the edge of being a liar.
I think we're wasting our
I think we're wasting our time here gforce, this creature is clearly one polymer short of a double helix.
"Ban him" I hear, the chant goes up, and I was banging the loudest drum in the procession... :)
Are you serious or what that
Are you serious or what that you can understand what I said ?
I meant that if the entry point of Drupal was to be purchased like some mnc softwares
there will not be so many developers or nube coders and users.
You do not have to purchase Drupal - core is non commercial. I wish it extended to the
extensions etc. Some cms-es are doing just that. And people are getting those code as well as coders are earning money from elsewhere.
It does, all Drupal code -
It does, all Drupal code - both core and contributed modules, is by definition, GPL. That is what GPL ensures, don't you understand that rudiment of the GPL licence?
Get your facts strait first OK. Clearly, simply by using the naming convention "extensions" you know little or nothing about Drupal, and perhaps a little about Joomla, which uses the term "extension".
This person is a troll, or at lest, acting in a very troll like way.
By extensions I meant all
By extensions I meant all the services or stuffs that are purchasable.
Noncommercial lic makes things free of purchase.
No body is forcing anyone anything. You may continue to sell.
If cmses . better than today, choose to have noncommercial lic they can have, as already some are having.
Rules change - when it was Drupal one no one thought that the name Drupal will go out of GPL and become a commodity etc.
No you didn't, now you're
No you didn't, now you're just backtracking. You clearly used the word "code" in the sentences referring to extensions.
Non-commercial licenced open source CMS will never compete because it will never attract the depth and attention of the really really smart programmers - who in their right mind would dedicate thousands of hours (that is what it takes) to something that they could not leverage for financial gain - when, stage left, hello, heres Drupal, Joomla, Wordress and Plone with zillions of willing users, developers and clients.
I know where I want to spend my time - a project that values my input enough to realise I also need earn a living from it.
I am not backtracking and I
I am not backtracking and I do not understand what you say.
Drupal was noncommercial to begin with. And many cms-es are pledging non-commercial for their lifetime.
This thread was an opener to that and a discussion, not a means to threaten smart coders out of their money :--)
Hey Troll, can you answer a
Hey Troll, can you answer a question for once?
You are the one blabbing on about "cheating coders out of money" and other such rubbish, we on the other hand have actually tried to discuss this issues with some rational.
You don't seem that interested in discussion, just running off on tagents and posting drivel.
CONCERN TROLL. BEWARE.
You really have no idea what
You really have no idea what you are talking about do you? There are no extensions etc... that are not GPL licensed under the exact same GPL license (or a compatible one) that drupal itself is licensed under. That is a specific requirement of the particular GPL license that drupal uses. Go read it.
Extensions was meant
Extensions was meant loosely. It is very geeky if you assume common usage words as equivalent to modules etc. Whatever extends beyond the basic - the paid commercial stuffs and services.
The discussion has been about that only from beginning .
Head-scratching
As best as I can tell, you're saying that the GPL license is insufficient because it allows people to sell commercial services like consulting, hosting, and so on around Drupal. if it were illegal to sell hosted services, or consulting, those services would not suddenly become free. They would be nonexistent.
--
Lullabot! | Eaton's blog | VotingAPI discussion
I am not saying anything :
I am not saying anything : there is in fact a lic like CC NON-comm lic and in fact some cms-es are adopting it. I am no one in this scenario :--)
Hosting ? That is far fetched argument. Webhosts do not sell a software or its mods or themes, so far as fantastico is concerned they offer free installation ( thus killing the $$ of many installation services - but dont get into the buggy behavior of fantastico here, though I find that hardly buggy)
Consulting in a non-comm environment can be done just like in a forum, chat, mailing lists just like it was in Drupal 1 - it had no comm aspect and still it did not stop to getting enriched/transformed to ver 2 !
hi
hi who r u ?
see
see http://drupal.org/licensing/faq for some additional info
===
"Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish and you feed him for a lifetime." - Lao Tzu
"God helps those who help themselves." - Ben Franklin
"Search is your best friend." - Worldfallz
Heh, in the first link in
Heh, in the first link in that FAQ page (http://www.softwarefreedom.org) notice that the content on every page of the linked site is licensed under "Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 2.0". As I said, every license has its place.
And *the content* of drupal.org itself is under "Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike license 2.0"
also worth looking at the is
also worth looking at the is cc readable GPL: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/GPL/2.0
I'm no lawyer, but in practice it seems CC licenses generally seem to apply to creative content while gpl to code-- though i have no clue if there is something the CC licenses that would preclude their use with code.
In any case, due to the complexities involved, it's always best to consult a lawyer when it comes to licensing issues.
===
"Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish and you feed him for a lifetime." - Lao Tzu
"God helps those who help themselves." - Ben Franklin
"Search is your best friend." - Worldfallz
wow, absolutely ludicrous
This is not even bordering on the ludicrous-- it's now crossed over into total insanity. I was going to sit on my hands on this one but to sit here and watch you attack one of the most prolific and helpful drupal developers with your Bolshevik nonsense is just too much.
-----------------------
NEWFLASH!!!!!!!!
Commercial != bad
-----------------------
so do everyone here a favor-- and go troll on their forums. If drupal is so philosophically antithetical for you what are you doing here?
OMG who do you think you are to judge how anyone else should or should not earn their living?
You know I'm constantly amazed when these threads pop up from time to time-- inevitably they are started by people who's tracker shows 50 posts started by them for their own needs and like 5, if any, assisting someone else. Surprise surprise-- yours is no different.
drupal is a meritocracy-- go and contribute >6000 commits and/or 1000s of man hours to the project then come back here and tell merlin and the other drupal developers how they should conduct their professional life.
nah... not even then do you get that right....
===
"Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish and you feed him for a lifetime." - Lao Tzu
"God helps those who help themselves." - Ben Franklin
"Search is your best friend." - Worldfallz
Whatever was said by me was
Whatever was said by me was in the spirit of discussion and arguments .
The question was about licensing - not drupal being antithetical, and why shall it be antithetical to me?
>OMG who do you think you are to judge how anyone else should or should not earn their living?
And what made you think I am passing judgements ? It was argument against argument. Do you want me to quote in conversation style how it evolved ??
>they are started by people who's tracker shows 50 posts started by them for their own needs and like 5
So their own needs do not contribute to bug discovery, feature enrichment by way of feature suggestion, and above all spread of Drupal by the way they pay hosts to host Drupal. Eh??
This '5 posts' poster actually add upto 5000 or 50000 and they do not expect any money. It is out of them the money is made 'collectively' meaning they form a MASS which lets you earn your 'living'
So do not be sarcastic about a poster who has even 1 post. Drops add to Drupal.
>they are started by people who's tracker shows 50 posts started by them for their own needs and like 5
So you mean there are hard coded parameters which define WHO with HOW MANY posts can discuss WHAT ??? Please make an issue submission for including the params/rules.
:--) Nice !! But now you see how money is bad ;)
No way man, money is great,
No way man, money is great, like just today, I bought some food. It cost money. Sorry, but in the concrete jungle I live we can't go out and hoe the field and grow our own...
You use a computer - someone paid for that yes (unless you stole it..). Money eh? Amazing stuff.
Troll.
I enjoy html. I need not pay
I enjoy html. I need not pay anyone ( lucky that microsofts html project was busted). I enjoy php. I do not need money.
I enjoy all these works for free.
If some one asks for such same free-ness I get angry. I get upset. I usually bash her.
Single thread, single 'general discussion' forum, arguments, counter-arguments -
Eureka! I have got a new definition for 'troll'
It's not being sarcastic or
It's not being sarcastic or 'hard coded parameters', don't be disingenuous. The amount of respect one gets when proselytizing about drupal is directly related to the amount of effort put into the project. That's what a meritocracy is. You may not like it, but no one is going to care.
Money is neither good nor bad on its own accord -- it's an inanimate object. It's the people and how they use the money that determines whether or not something purchased is bad.
And all the ;-) 's in the world won't change this post from nonsense that it is.
Besides, as one of the other posters already pointed out this thread is a complete waste of time anyway-- drupal and all contributed modules are GPL, and as such can never change-- it's not possible. If you don't like that go find a product with a license that meets your needs or write one yourself.
==
"Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish and you feed him for a lifetime." - Lao Tzu
"God helps those who help themselves." - Ben Franklin
"Search is your best friend." - Worldfallz
>> You use a computer -
>> You use a computer - someone paid for that yes (unless you stole it..).
Thats the charm of moneyless stuffs like html. No one has to pay and no one has to steal.
Perhaps you got the point. ;-)
>> The amount of respect one gets when proselytizing about drupal is directly related to the amount
Its hard discussion, not a question of getting respect or bashing.
No one ever cared to throw insight or have a thought or two : why some cms-es are indeed going the NON-commercial way.
>> drupal and all contributed modules are GPL, and as such can never change-- it's not possible
Uttering impossibility ( without showing reasons ) is the subtle start of the fall. The reasons here were not related to 'code' but some people losing some money.
>> the world won't change this post from nonsense that it is.
I believe Noncommercial-Share Alike license is also nonsense.
>> If you don't like that go find a product with a license that meets your needs or write one yourself.
Thats a nice advice. I appreciate. In case you forgot what the post was about: it was an innocent question followed by some lateral thinking by me :
"" Do you feel 1024 Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike license is better ...? Some CMSes seem to be actively adopting Noncommercial-Share
Can a fork of Drupal release itself under the license ? If there is no such provision can GNU be letter-requested to implement such provision ? Rules do change over times. ""
It was just a question in the 'general discussion' forum. But some of you got shaken by the idea that you will LOSE your money, failing to discuss whether NON-Commercial can actually increase MORE participation. ( Though GNU, Drupal 1 or 2 or perhaps even 3 was got because of being NON-comm in effect ) Some of you were perturbed by the fact that I want it all free while at the same time yourselves enjoying php, and its vast improvements now in version5, all for free !
>> and as such can never change-- it's not possible.
I asked a question. You have ANSWERED that. Congratulations !!!!
Uttering impossibility (
without showing reasons? the GPL is the reason-- try reading it: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/GPL/2.0
Once something is released under the GPL it cannot be unGPL'd.
===
"Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish and you feed him for a lifetime." - Lao Tzu
"God helps those who help themselves." - Ben Franklin
"Search is your best friend." - Worldfallz
How can GPL itself state
How can GPL itself state 'why something other than GPL' ?
The question was : Can we (theoritically at least) think of something else than GPL?
Like "Noncommercial-Share" ? Like some cms-es are doing?
That was the question.
You have answered NO.
You have answered you need money from Drupal.
Thats fine.
I congratulated you on your anwer. Once again, I congratulate. If you get time in future do some 'lateral thinking' :--)
You have answered you need
bzzzzt.... wrong answer. I do NOT earn even $0.01 from drupal and i've never said otherwise.
===
"Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish and you feed him for a lifetime." - Lao Tzu
"God helps those who help themselves." - Ben Franklin
"Search is your best friend." - Worldfallz
So whats your argument
you = you / some of you ....
>> wrong answer
So whats your argument against Noncommercial ?
Maybe you want to ensure other people's earning or your future earning :--)
( Your profile shows you provide Drupal-related services ;-))
>> I do NOT earn even $0.01 from drupal
That was my point. Why can't we all be like that :--)
i've explained it clearly in
i've explained it clearly in other posts as have others-- this is just circling the drain for you're amusement and i'm bored with it.
cat rizaa > /dev/null :--)
===
"Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish and you feed him for a lifetime." - Lao Tzu
"God helps those who help themselves." - Ben Franklin
"Search is your best friend." - Worldfallz
>> I do NOT earn even $0.01
>> I do NOT earn even $0.01 from drupal
BUT my profile shows I provide drupal related services.
Ha ha ha
(BTW - will you solve the drupal riddles, see much above in this page, as part of your services. I will shoot you an email and know about how much $ is needed)
>> i've explained it clearly in other posts as have others-
You have explained nothing ( you owe an explanation for the above)
When you lose logic you are 'bored' and you go for /dev/null ;--)
But thanks for providing the amusement.
In 'general' forum we do need to get 'amused' occasionally and sometimes with a serious face. Don't we ?
Bookmark this thread and return after 50 years, after retirement :-) to have nice nostalgic feelings of forum wars!
What you are saying about
What you are saying about what a project could achieve with a license with a non-commercial-use requirement could be interesting. Or not. I would need some kind of hard facts from experience and practice to figure it out.
The most important question is: Can you point out a few of the most successful software projects which have a license with a non-commercial-use requirement, to get an idea about what to expect?
There are also some subtle points, for example if Firefox did that, then all businesses, shops, and professionals at work would be required to use IE. I guess we can all live with that if the answer to the first question is good enough (and if Firefox in this hypothetical scenario reaps greater benefits).
Thanks cog.rusty.Every
Thanks cog.rusty.
Every experiment has a beginning. Before that 'hard' results cannot be shown.
'Successful' is also relative term. Drupal is not as successful as Google/Microsoft and yet successful.
>> Can you point out a few
I already gave link/s to such projects. In fact that is how the opening post of this thread happened.
http://www.1024cms.com/index.php?p=viewpost&id=24
How much 'success' this project get will need some more time to say. There are some other projects also considering this license.
I need to read in detail about what you wrote about FF but please note that browsers or operating systems in use are at max 5 or 6. While CMSes in good use are more than at least 50 or 100 - some of them are coming UP with non-commercial clause and attracting developers.
[ Note on FF - no, businesses, shops, and professionals would not have to stop using FF. They are not selling FF. Are they ? Non-commercial lic details will elaborate on this more - have a read.
And we are discussing cmses, not browsers or OS, and some cms have actually taken up that lic]
For example, if Drupal had such non-comm clause the guys/gals who made 1024 would be ( or there would have been a possibility of they being) drawn into projects like Drupal - instead of their vast energy/coding going into separate projects. Can you ( general you) then see the bigger picture ?
I am actually more
I am actually more interested in a factual bigger picture before starting an analysis.
Many software projects have been going on for years with different licenses. I asked for some of the most successful projects of that approach, to get a measure of what can be achieved, and to examine them for the specific benefits promised by your theory.
Is the 1024cms project one of the most successful of this approach? If so, how well is it attracting developers? How many? If the developer attraction part is going well, does the system have some exceptional features as a result? (Or, point to another, more successful project if you want, to check if your theory holds or not)
Give "success" any clear definition you want. Functionality, popularity, technical matters, anything. I guess "success" should also cover the predictions of your theory. Given a specific definition of "success", anyone can figure out how important or unimportant this success would be.
======= Edited to add:
In your last reply to my hypothetical Firefox example, I noticed that you consider it OK for a business to use the software in its operation, and make profit from its use, as long as the software can't be sold. Do I understand your position correctly?
Let us suppose a
Let us suppose a hypothetical situation where Drupal or any xyz cms script is indeed non-commercial, not just the core but all stuffs related to it. Yet a site can use this Drupal or xyz to collect donations or even display some ads or sale some unrelated goodies. As far as I know the CC Non-Comm lic is not violated by this. Does it answer your FF related question ? There is another aspect to note, which I say repeatedly but perhaps not stressed. Over the years and it looks for the next 20 or 30 years it will be only four or five/six major browser and OS that will stay in the game. This is not the case with cms. Apart from php cmses people can now also choose from ruby on rails and another language in hibernation, not to speak of perl and python. So analogies are not appropriate imho
Your FF question however is interesting. Some softwares have indeed two lic-s - one comm for comm purposes and non-comm for non-comms. The difference is that : in a hypothetical Drupal scenario where there are two such lic-s if I am a non-comm I will get all the possible benefits of Acquia or similar . In the real life scenario whether I am comm or non-comm to get all the possible benefits of Acquia one must pay (the rich-poor divide)
>> Give "success" any clear definition you want.
Clear is again a relative term. To me : that 1024 has dared to bring itself out under such license when commercial opensource is in monstrous proportions, that there has been plenty of downloads so far, that at least some developers have been attracted is "success" to me or at least the beginning of success :-) To each her/his own definition :-)
Drupal is working fine with GNU GPL, people are happy earning money - so all is fine.
However what gets marred is the creativity in this business sceanario. Creativity is not creating modules or remote monitoring. Imagine creativity as something which gave you email, blog, photo-tagging or even cms - something new, really new !! So what is clear success ? Huge business or having being the first to be some numero uno like html or php or blog or ...
I don't feel that I got the
I don't feel that I have the factual answers which would allow me to treat the theory in your proposition as testable and falsifiable.
Understand that I enjoy talking about the properties of the Invisible Pink Unicorn as much as the next guy, but not when it is about actually taking action.
Also note that, with your clarification about "non-commercial", developers can continue to make money by providing their services to businesses which want to use the software, exactly as they do now.
No, they cannot actually.
>> "non-commercial", developers can continue to make money by providing their services to businesses
No, they cannot actually. Perhaps you misinterpreted my 'clarification'. They can use a site powered by a software to sell flowers or bricks but they cannot sell the software or any software related services. There is no point in going round. This is an established lic, the terms are clearly laid in CC NOn-Comm lic and certain cms-es are using this lic and these cms-es are not selling the cms or any cms related services (this is fact, I have given the link)
And whether you have factual answers or not ( this is also a relative need to start any 'action') NO ONE is going to allow you to change the existing Drupal license, so you cannot do any meaningful test anyway :D
If you want to do a little bit of testing and if you are a coder what about contributing something to 1024 if you have some spare time? That way you can actually test and contribute some facts also :-)
Discussion forum is discussion, this is not issue q so you need not submit patches or jump into action for something critical - so no question of taking action. Be happy !
Yes, the CC site says
Yes, the CC site says "Noncommercial: You may not use this work for commercial purposes." They clearly cover commercial use, and not just selling.
What I was referring to was "how do you want it to work". This is the most important, because if you know what you want to do then you can pick the proper license. Actually it is simple: If you may use the software professionally, naturally you can hire developers to do it for you. If you may not use the software professionally, you will have to use some other software for your business needs. If you use the software for personal stuff, again you can hire a developer to do it for you.
Factual answers are good for any meaningful discussion, and their lack is the reason that we have been talking past each other. But you are right, this is academic. Nobody can change Drupal's license because hundreds of contributors during a long time have offered the code under that license. Moreover, attribution is impossible in the way contributions work, with submissions of thousands of small patches discussed by many and finally committed by an authorized person.
Finally, to be honest, I do not intend to check 1024, for the same reason that I don't check many other CMSs: I have no good reason to. I have not seen any good argument about its capabilities.
>> I don't check many other
>> I don't check many other CMSs: I have no good reason to
LOL - unless you get into the depth or dig into the code how do you ? By reviews ? But that is incomplete vision. Something like ostrich ?
How much lateral thinking we do depends on us only, and digging here and there can give discovery to pearls. Unless you are adventourous how do you explore and discover new horizons ? But then, there is no compulsion to do. Some men babbled useless and imagined and wrote useless fictions over years about journey to moon, and then some men put facts, put reality into that after years.
I presented the opening post with a real fact, none of which are my hypothesis or imagination. You ( you/general you) find that fact is not sufficient. This is fine. We all love Drupal. So let us get some life !
Heh, OK, now tell me that
Heh, OK, now tell me that you go and find random pieces of software (CMSs or other kinds which interest you), you dig in their code, and you are in a position to make a fairly good assessment from that. If that is the case, then you are way out of my league, so I don't feel bad that I don't. I am more interested in user reviews and user adoption rates as a signal to start looking.
Your hypothesis that I was taking about was that a software project which adopts a non-commercial-use license is more likely to attract developers and produce good code, and that many people will want to use it.
Because a non-commercial-use clause is not something new, and it has been used for a long time, I asked for empirical evidence that what you predict has ever happened with existing projects with a non-commercial-use requirement, to a comparatively significant degree.
So, to the definition of "successful", you may include the promises/predictions of your hypothesis and nothing more.
ha ha - you are right
ha ha - you are right logically
> Because a non-commercial-use clause is not something new, and it has been used for a long time
All the lic-s are relatively new, meaning as new as say, php is.
Even if they are not something new, some cms-es adopting them is new. How they fare only the near future can tell.
Though by the tone of this thread and the way everybody today does coding to achieve 'earning' or 'enterprise' status - the future of these non-comm projects does look bleak. (Feeling a little bit sad)
Unless, you know, a whole crop of poets and singers ( who has dayjobs as engineers, lawyers, what not) who are also excellent coders give suddenly comes and give away their code ( like free poetry)
But then are we speaking of the "Pink Unicorn" :D
Why GPL works
I can't think of a better example of the benefits of GPL than Drupal. Regular folk like me get to use some great free tools from some of the world's best web developers (like merlinofchaos). Personally, I want those developers to earn lots of money from clients so they can keep doing great stuff for the Drupal community. (Though perhaps not too much; we don't want them retiring to the French Riviera just yet :-)
And a rhetorical question: I wonder if the Web design company behind 1024 makes money from 1024 code?
Note: this is a rhetorical question. I don't really want an answer. Good luck to them if they do make money from 1024, but it would be typical, as egalitarianism is rarely the motivation behind non-commercial licences.
Irrelevant thread
This entire thread is pointless and lacking in fact.
1) Drupal is under the GPL. Period. That cannot and will not change. Even if anyone wanted to, it would require the consent of well over 1000 developers, probably nearing 2000, many of whom we do not currently have contact information for.
2) Drupal modules must also, therefore, be under the GPL. Period. See the FAQ: http://drupal.org/licensing/faq#q7
3) Anyone can fork Drupal any time the wish... provided that they follow the GPL. The GPL does not permit the addition of additional restrictions on the distribution of the code, such as "non-commercial only". Therefore no, it is not possible for anyone to release a fork of Drupal under the CC-Attribution-NonCom-ShareAlike license. No, there is nothing that the FSF (the authors of the GPL) can or would do to make such an effort possible.
4) Other CMSes are welcome to do what they want with their licenses. That has no bearing on Drupal at all unless they try to borrow code from Drupal. They are more than welcome to do so, provided that they follow the GPL.
Any other debate about whether the GPL is good or bad for business (or whatever else was being discussed) is irrelevant, since Drupal will not be changing from the GPL.
There also appears to be a great deal of confusion (perhaps deliberately) about what "non-commercial" means. Drupal has been under the GPL since its very first release. It was never under any other license. The GPL is not a "non-commercial license".
The CC-Att-NC-SA license uses "non-commercial" to restrict users of the code from using it "commercially", that is, in a profit-making means. The intent is that if you use the work so licensed for a profit, you must negotiate with the original author for a separate license that is not CC-Att-NC-SA. Whether that is "good or bad" is irrelevant to Drupal, as such a restriction is expressly forbidden by the GPL and by the principles of Free Software so it is not compatible with the GPL.
Debate about rich vs. poor developers has nothing to do with the GPL, and while such a discussion may be valid the discussion in this thread has long since gone past being valid to being a confusion and flame fest. It has therefore been locked. Please stick to on-topic, civil, reasoned conversation in the Drupal forums.
--
Larry Garfield
Director of Legal Affairs for the Drupal Project
Drupal Association Board of Directors