[add-art dev] license

[Steve Lambert]

After talking yesterday the general consensus was that

- it would be kinda lame if Doritos (or anyone else) used the code to  
make something.  But a license is unlikely to prevent it.
- they probably wouldn't - and they could always pay some qualified  
people to do what we did in a couple weeks anyway and make their own  
code
- if someone/company did use it, their code should be free so we  
could get access and use their improvements in Add-Art.

So we're leaning toward GPL.  The second runner up was WTFPL because  
we all liked the profanity.

All you on the list can weigh in and if it's clear we all more or  
less agree, then we'll figure out which it will be.

Steve

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




On Jan 17, 2009, at 1:33 PM, Michael Mandiberg wrote:

> I'm also uneasy w/ the doritos maneuver
>
> is there a GPL version of CC+, where you reserve the rights to  
> assign commercial use on a case by case basis?
>
> m
>
>
> On Jan 16, 2009, at 11:54 PM, Steve Lambert wrote:
>
>> 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
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Supperclub mailing list
>> Supperclub at lists.add-art.org
>> http://lists.add-art.org/listinfo.cgi/supperclub-add-art.org
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20090118/89e7a2c8/attachment.htm>