

The Case for Free Use: Reasons Not to Use a Creative Commons -NC License - jessaustin
http://freedomdefined.org/Licenses/NC

======
Spearchucker
There's a metric ton of stuff in there that tells me how good it's going to be
for everybody but I see very little that tells me how good it will be for me,
the creator of my software. I spent 7 years building an app [1]. The current
version comes in at just under 100KLOC. That thing is almost ready to ship so
I need to start thinking about a licensing model. I have yet to see a
compelling reason to make me just give my work away. After all the work I've
put into this thing I'm selfish. I want to benefit from what I created so
honest question - what's in it for ME if I open source?

[https://www.wittenburg.co.uk/Entry.aspx?id=0a505400-5bf6-4a6...](https://www.wittenburg.co.uk/Entry.aspx?id=0a505400-5bf6-4a6d-b107-6b4b797f33ae)

~~~
leephillips
Your app looks great, but I won't even consider using it unless it's open
source. I need to know I can modify it (for my own use), see what it does, and
recompile it if I need to when I upgrade my operating system if you've stopped
supporting it. I would have no problem paying you for software like this if I
decide to use it, but I wouldn't use it without the source even if it were
free. Yes, commercial open source software is a thing; a thing people often
forget about. You might be worried that people will steal your program if it's
open source. Some people will, just as they steal books, which are the most
familiar commercial open source thing. But authors and publishers make a
living anyway.

EDIT: Apparently the concept of commercial open source software is so
confusing to some people that, bizarrely enough, they describe this comment as
supporting the "free software" movement.

~~~
icebraining
Why is that bizarre? The fact that you concentrate on your rights as the end
user to modify the software is exactly what the Free Software movement
defends, unlike Open Source which focuses on the superiority of the
development process.

And the Free Software movement also supports selling your software. In the
words of rms, "redistributing free software is a good and legitimate activity;
if you do it, you might as well make a profit from it."[1]

[1]
[https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/selling.html](https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/selling.html)

~~~
leephillips
(1) I said nothing about any imaginary "rights" to modify software; I said
that I would choose to avoid software that I couldn't modify, for practical
reasons.

(2) I made an analogy to books to explain what I meant by commercial open
source software. The author or publisher would retain the copyright, and I
would have no rights to redistribute sources or compiled versions. This, of
course, is directly contrary to what the free software movement advocates.

~~~
icebraining
I thought even Microsoft had given in to OSI's definition of "open source". So
you mean open source as in source available, like PGP was. Fair enough.

------
empressplay
CC-NC is still really useful for music. Nobody wants to release their music
for free, and then hear it in the soundtrack of a multi-million dollar
blockbuster. Or maybe they would, but then they'd sure as heck still be
kicking themselves that they didn't get paid.

CC-NC prevents large-scale exploitation. I'm not sure the drawbacks of
confusion over trivial use, or small-scale exploitation, outweigh the benefits
of not having a large corporation save money by using your stuff and not
paying you.

~~~
dingaling
> Or maybe they would, but then they'd sure as heck still be kicking
> themselves that they didn't get paid.

I see this argument frequently in the photography world, but it doesn't make
sense to me.

As an amateur making art for enjoyment, as a hobby, with no expectation of
financial return, does it matter if some corporation makes money from my work?
I'm no worse off than I was beforehand, in fact I might be in a better
position because my name will be out there.

I have no love of corporations, but if they want to use my photograph to sell
a product then go for it. Trying to prevent that sounds to me like muddled
principles.

~~~
Spearchucker
That I think its the elephant in the room. Many artist have an expectation of
financial return. In fact many do it to make a living. And open source doesn't
support that.

