[add-art dev] license

[Steve Lambert]

I'm not firm on anything and can definitely be swayed. In fact, I  
totally defer to the majority on this.  I'd just be reluctant if  
someday it meant we handed over a bunch of R&D based on enthusiasm  
and goodwill to Nabisco for some bullshit project they could put $$$  
of promotion behind.

I am admittedly spooked by the Doritos thing.  Being confronted by it  
(even though it was a spec piece in the end) was a little unsettling.

But I probably never wrote anything down because I was avoiding a  
decision.  We can talk about this today I suppose.  And again, if I  
am the sole dissenter I will get behind whatever y'all think.

Steve

--
Steve Lambert - http://visitsteve.com
The Special Edition - http://nytimes-se.com
Eyebeam Senior Fellow - http://eyebeam.org




On Jan 16, 2009, at 4:18 PM, Jamie Wilkinson wrote:

>> * do we care if people use this code to build something commercial
>>  No problem.  Go make money
>
> Steve mentioned concern about something like that Doritos add-art  
> fork over IM yesterday
>
> IMHO open source means the freedom to do whatever you'd like, and I  
> don't have a problem with a commercialish fork of AA. But I don't  
> run something called the Anti-Advertising Agency ;)
>
> I wonder if there is prior work on this kind of restrictive  
> license? I've never heard of one that prevents commercialization  
> (beyond CC, which they don't recommend for software).
>
> Honestly it might be fun to do Just Cuz, and to help others in the  
> future who might want such a license, like GRL's Laser Tag (which  
> has a strict "no advertisers" clause)
>
> -jamie
> _______________________________________________
> Supperclub mailing list
> Supperclub at lists.add-art.org
> http://lists.add-art.org/listinfo.cgi/supperclub-add-art.org

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.add-art.org/pipermail/supperclub-add-art.org/attachments/20090116/e89e666b/attachment.htm>