[add-art dev] license

[Matt Katz]

I talked with my lawyer pal.  He says no FOSS license prohibits commercial
use and assures me that this is for a good reason.
> 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
>
> _______________________________________________
> Supperclub mailing list
> Supperclub at lists.add-art.org
> http://lists.add-art.org/listinfo.cgi/supperclub-add-art.org
>