> I'm not sure if the Open Source Initiative
> has approved the CC licenses, this may be the best fit?
I am not sure whether OSI will be approving any of the CC licenses
(the last time I checked they hadn't), but CC-No-Commercial license is
most certainly _not_ an open sourcelicense per their definition as it
violates criterion 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." CC-No-Commercial is similarly not a "free software" license
per FSF's definition, as it violates "Freedom 0" ("The freedom to run
the program, for any purpose").
OTOH, gitorious could probably err on the side of inclusivity when it
comes to those CC licenses that are _arguably_ open source. (That
would be those that do not say "No Derived Works" and "No
Commercial".)
- yuri
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Gitorious" group.
To post to this group, send email to [email protected]
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
[email protected]
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/gitorious?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
