Non-commerical licenses: what's the point?

Eliot Rosewater

What is the point in releasing your software under a non-commercial licence?


The only benefit I can see is if you're charging commercial entities for the work. It's always nice to make a few bob out of your labours. But this really only works if what you've created is a) really good and b) not easily replaced by something free or better.

The main motivation for using a non-commercial licence, from what I can see, is some kind of begrudgery towards people making money out of something you've created. However, when you think of it, someone making money out of your project does not affect you at all.

I think there are many downsides to non-commercial licences. Imagine if a company like Red Hat couldn't get involved with Linux. When one goes beyond the anti-capitalist rhetoric, one realises that profit-motivated companies can be good for open-source projects.

Thoughts?

Nitochris

Eliot Rosewater wrote: »

What is the point in releasing your software under a non-commercial licence?


The only benefit I can see is if you're charging commercial entities for the work. It's always nice to make a few bob out of your labours. But this really only works if what you've created is a) really good and b) not easily replaced by something free or better.

The main motivation for using a non-commercial licence, from what I can see, is some kind of begrudgery towards people making money out of something you've created. However, when you think of it, someone making money out of your project does not affect you at all.

I think there are many downsides to non-commercial licences. Imagine if a company like Red Hat couldn't get involved with Linux. When one goes beyond the anti-capitalist rhetoric, one realises that profit-motivated companies can be good for open-source projects.

Thoughts?

It's been a while since I wrote my thesis on this but as I recall the point of a non-commercial license (and non traditional licenses in general) is that it gives you as a creator more control over your product. The some rights reserved instead of all rights reserved. It is to make sure that others do not exploit the fruits of your labour at the same time releasing it to benefit others.

As for the rhetoric it is often justified (usually justified back in '06 not sure if that is still the case) with Thomas Jefferson's "He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me." basically so long as I'm not put out others can benefit from my creation - with the implication that somebody else selling the software product would put me (or you or anyone else) as a creator out of pocket. In other word intellectual property unlike physical property is not finite so different rules can and should apply.

Johnboy1951

You did not specify exactly but .....

would it not be true to say that non-commercial licences are available for product which is also released under a commercial licence?

In that case the non-commercial use is a sort of promotional thing -- get people using it for personal use and they will likely influence its use in commercial settings.

Of course if you are speaking of something with no commercial licence at all, then I might tend to agree with the begrudgery idea.

There are also situations where a small part of a larger programme are released and it would effect the larger programme if the two parts were to have a licence conflict.

croo

It's not clear to me what is meant by a "non-commercial" license?
In terms of free open source licenses I do not know of any FOS license that contains an impediment to commerce. So just to be clear, what exactly is meant by non-commercial... can we have some examples?

Nitochris

croo wrote: »

It's not clear to me what is meant by a "non-commercial" license?
In terms of free open source licenses I do not know of any FOS license that contains an impediment to commerce. So just to be clear, what exactly is meant by non-commercial... can we have some examples?

I think we (as in I) may be mixing things up here, my post was based on the legal concept of non-commercial rather than FLOSS itself, I was drawing on Lessig's work (and the creative commons in particular). In the context of CC you can license a work to allow for commercial use or not. FLOSS would generally be Share Alike (or more correctly the equivalent of Share Alike) rather than Non-Commercial

Here's a non-commercial software license that is not FLOSS http://mech.fsv.cvut.cz/~dr/software/T3d/licence.pdf

croo

Nitochris wrote: »

I think we (as in I) may be mixing things up here

okay, and that non-FLOSS license example certainly could be considered non-commercial.
But hence my question - given the forum name.
And thanks, by the way, for the Thomas Jefferson quote - I had not read that before.

But I am curious if by "non-commercial" the OP means typical FLOSS licenses ... which to my understanding is they are not non-commercial - though I accept many people might understand them so. So to my understanding they are not non-commercial because they do not restrict one in commerce. For example, I may sell redhat or ubuntu or any other distribution to anybody I can convince to give me money for it! The one and only restriction I face with GPL'd linux is that I must provide the source code.

And I also think this idea expressed by the OP as FLOSS being anti-capitalist is unfounded. As I see it typical closed source application actually act as a restriction of trade. In most other walks of life the idea, I suggest, would be totally alien. Imagine if you contracted an architect/developer to design and build you a house. Then afterwards you were forbidden access to the plans and your were even forbidden to investigate what might be behind a wall.. to the extent that if you wanted to hang a picture you needed to consult & contract the original designer to ensure you did not puncture a pipe or hit a cable ... absurd wouldn't it be. But in essence this is what is happening when you buy most closed source applications. This example would clearly be a restriction of commerce since I would not be free to choose a picture hanger from an open marketplace but be required to engage one provided by the original developer.

In addition, I would argue that too often when people consider commercial & FLOSS, they consider the question only from one side - the developers - and not from the perspective of the customer!

Johnboy1951

I read the original post referring to "non-commercial" licences as commenting on some of the non-commercial licences as opposed to using a licence like the GPL ...... hence the begrudgery aspect of not being prepared to share the code while at the same time allowing free personal use.

Maybe I misunderstood the intent ....

AndrewMc

Eliot Rosewater wrote: »

What is the point in releasing your software under a non-commercial licence?

I think the benefit of a share-alike license (like GPL or CC-SA) is that if somebody adds to your work and distributes it, they have to distribute their changes under the same license too. Everyone incrementally improves whatever they need and has to share it (if they're distributing those improvements), but everyone sees the benefit, too. All those changes feed back into the original and you tend to get a bit of momentum among the community that forms around it.

There is still room to make money. You can make custom modifications for one-off use internally by a customer, and they can keep that to themselves. Sometimes those customers may decide to release that code to the community, despite having paid for it. They may realise (a) they needed those changes one way or another so there's no financial difference, and (b) if it's in the community it has a better chance of being maintained and maybe even improved over time, possibly all for free.

croo

Johnboy1951 wrote: »

I read the original post referring to "non-commercial" licences as commenting on some of the non-commercial licences as opposed to using a licence like the GPL ...... hence the begrudgery aspect of not being prepared to share the code while at the same time allowing free personal use.

Maybe I misunderstood the intent ....

Hmmm... no, it looks like you called it correct and it was I who misinterpreted.

Eliot Rosewater

Jeez, I'm sorry I never got back to this thread: Open Source isn't in my subbed list so I forgot about it! Cheers for all the replies!

I was referring to licenses like the Creative Commons non-commercial license where "you let others copy, distribute, display, and perform your work — and derivative works based upon it — but for non-commercial purposes only." This is still thought of as open source.

As per the Thomas Jefferson quote I don't see how someone making money out of my software impacts upon me in any negative way.

evercloserunion

Do people even use Creative Commons licences for software? As far as I know, CC licences were created to provide a GPL-type licence for other artistic works such as literature.

As for the reasoning behind non-commercial CC licences, Lawrence Lessig (the creator of CC) is opposed to the commercialisation of ideas. He believes that the reduction of ideas to commodities to be bought and sold is ultimately bad for society. So I guess the reasoning behind non-commercial CC licences is based on rhetoric, but:
- The rhetoric is not entirely unjustified.
- The rhetoric is not necessarily anti-capitalist; Lessig does not, for example, oppose property rights. It simply views intellectual creations as occupying a different role within society.
- Lessig has used non-commercial licences for his own works which have spoken out against the commercialisation of ideas. It would be a bit rich if these works were to be exploited for profit by a third party, and it may even lead some to think Lessig a hypocrite if they mistakenly associated him with the commercial enterprise. So Lessig at least had a very legitimate reason to create and use the non-commercial licence.

Personally, I think that FOSS and the commerical sector have much to offer each other. But I also believe in the freedom to licence your work on your own terms so I have no problem with non-commercial licences, and I think Lessig makes some powerful arguments as well. You can download his book here.

Nothingbetter2d

non commercial licenses are there for a number of reasons.

1. Training - noone would buy your commercial licenses for business if your software had to be purchaced in order to learn how to use it. non profit/education licenses granted to schools and universities is a great way to sell a product to a graduate that will use it in his/her career.

2. Charity Organisations - Often software companies grant non profit license to registered charities in exchange for huge tax writeoffs