Which DUAL Licence should I choose.

[Tzeng, Nigel H.]

My personal belief is that they are simply being nice to not step on toes
(and avoid a huge non-constructive pissing contest) as opposed to there
being some significant issue in using CC licenses for software.  Again,
IANAL.

If you can point at an OSI approved equivalent for CC-BY-NC-SA please do
so.  Oh wait, by definition you cannot.  He wants to collect license fees
from commercial users, allow free use by private users and provide
royalties to contributors so no FOSS license is meaningfully applicable.

A big -1 is still better than a non-existant license.  Especially given
that CC has a port for Austria and most OSI licenses do not.  In case I
misread the original post, there's an australian port as well. :)  And the
NC clause has been tested and upheld in a european court.

http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/3.0/at/

What are the alternatives?  There are a few academic non-commercial
licenses out there but none all that widely accepted, well-known and
probably most need adaptation since they are tied to a specific entity.


On 8/1/11 12:38 PM, "Greg Grossmeier" <greg at grossmeier.net> wrote:

>On 08/01/2011 12:09 PM, Tzeng, Nigel H. wrote:
>> Yes, there are folks that will tell you not to use a CC license for
>> software.  
>
>Those folks being Creative Commons themselves:
>http://wiki.creativecommons.org/FAQ#Can_I_use_a_Creative_Commons_license_f
>or_software.3F
>
>Big -1 to using a CC license for any software.
>
>Greg
>
>-- 
>|       Greg Grossmeier |
>| http://grossmeier.net |