On 170424-15:59-0700, Rick Moen wrote:
> Quoting Miroslav Rovis (miro.rovis@???):
>
> > IOW, I asked for links where it is explained why "the withholding of
> > commercial-usage rights" "is not deemed an open source / free-software
> > licence".

Oh, no, not the "Open Source Initiative"! Richard Matthew Stallman
stills very often goes out of the way to explain that Open Source is not
really free!

So the quote is from kind of wrong (or, if preferred: to some extent
wrong) source... :
> Quoting OSD #6 from
> https://opensource.org/osd-annotated :
>
> 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.
>
> Rationale: The major intention of this clause is to prohibit license
> traps that prevent open source from being used commercially. We want
> commercial users to join our community, not feel excluded from it.
>
> and OSD #1:
>
> 1. Free Redistribution
> The license shall not restrict any party from selling or giving away the
> software as a component of an aggregate software distribution containing
> programs from several different sources. The license shall not require a
> royalty or other fee for such sale.
>
> Rationale: By constraining the license to require free redistribution,
> we eliminate the temptation for licensors to throw away many long-term
> gains to make short-term gains. If we didn't do this, there would be
> lots of pressure for cooperators to defect.
>
>
>
> Free software: Corresponding terms (corresponding to the above) are
> also in DFSG, because Bruce Perens created OSD by copying DFSG.

...[kind of wrong source], because:
https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.html

(As a sidenote: when I see open source, I really do see/fear the
schmoogs (see below for the term) using such licenses far often... And I
hate schmoogs...

DFSG = D???? Free Software Guidelines, or? Just if you could, fill in
the "????", I've already spent more time than I could afford, again...

> Or some would prefer to consult what FSF calls the 'Free Software
> Definition', previously call the Four Freedoms Essay.
> https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html.en
>
> The freedom to run the program as you wish, for any purpose (freedom 0).
>
> 'Any purpose' includes use in commerce.
Yeah, I read there, right!

>
> As I mentioned, the CC licences are extremely useful for non-software
> purposes, but, because their focus is on encouraging 'remixing' of
> cultural content, they offer both open source and proprietary licence
> variants in order to make content-providers of all inclinations more
> willing to permit _some_ variety of remixing.
>
However, while you are right in that the CC-BY-NC (which license you
noticed that I have used up until now; will be changing to CC-BY
A.S.A.P.) [in that the CC-BY-NC] is (for short:) incompatible with free
licenses (GPL and the broad family), CC-BY is compatible...

I had to read quite some more volume to get there, because I didn't know
where to find it, and the link is simple:

https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html
so:
https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html#CC-BY-ND
Creative Commons Noderivatives, any version (#CC-BY-ND)

    This license does not qualify as free, because there are
    restrictions on distributing modified versions. We recommend you do
    not use this license for documentation.

(but I've never used the above)

Here's the license that I thought was, but is not compatible, and which I will be
leaving for... :

https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html#CC-BY-NC
Creative Commons Nocommercial, any version (#CC-BY-NC)

    This license does not qualify as free, because there are
    restrictions on charging money for copies. Thus, we recommend you do
    not use this license for documentation.

    In addition, it has a drawback for any sort of work: when a modified
    version has many authors, in practice getting permission for
    commercial use from all of them would become infeasible.

...[and which I will be leaving for], but the text is somewhat
confusing, namely all the text below (except my comment secluded by
"---") under the link I give is marked with green marker, but the second
paragraph talks not about CC-BY, but about CC generally:

https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html#ccby

Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 license (a.k.a. CC BY) (#ccby)

    This is a non-copyleft free license that is good for art and
    entertainment works, and educational works. It is compatible with
---
See: "educational works", I'd like to teach newbies, among other use of
good free programs, to read the network some day, so that the schmoogs
of the world
(
goog the schmoogle and such. Y'know, the biggest spy company of the
world, Larry and Sergey's and Eric the new Goebels, who both put this
same idea: "If you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear!" into
such/similar sentence, just Eric said it some cca 60 years later than
Goebels.
)
won't be able to control their machines :)
---
    all versions of the GNU GPL; however, like all CC licenses, it
    should not be used on software.

    (#which-cc) Creative Commons publishes many licenses which are very
    different. Therefore, to say that a work “uses a Creative Commons
    license” is to leave the principal questions about the work's
    licensing unanswered. When you see such a statement in a work,
    please ask the author to change the work to state clearly and
    visibly which of the Creative Commons license it uses. And if
    someone proposes to “use a Creative Commons license” for a certain
    work, it is vital to ask “Which Creative Commons license?” before
    proceeding any further.

Also:

https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html#ccbysa

but pls. see there, if anyone is interested... (I fear I have
overquoted, however, I hope some reader will like it, not everybody is
online all the time (I for one, am not!), and this is quicker for
skim-readers)

Gotta go now. Regards!
--
Miroslav Rovis
Zagreb, Croatia
https://www.CroatiaFidelis.hr