The Non-Commercial provision of the license is towards the app/code, not what the app is used for by end users.
You would not be able to install it and sell users right to use it, but you would be able to install it in-house for your own employees.
You would not be able to install it and sell users right to use it, but you would be able to install it in-house for your own employees.
None of us gets to say that there are some commercial purposes that are ok and some that are not. You have to go by what it says. Or put it this way, some day someone what wants to use it against you, can and will go by what it says, and they will be right and win that argument.
This license is really pretty bad because while they try to allow educational use, educational use is itself usually also commercial use. If you use it in a class that you charge for, if a school that charges tuition uses it, if a youtuber even so much as uses it in a video that has either ads or a sponsor... those are all conmmercial use of the software.
Relying on the the rights-holder to just not persue it, ever, including next year when the rights-holder is some new owner, is just gambling.
Trying to carve out non-commercial is just misguided and ultimately self-defeating in my opinion. It is better than purely traditionally closed software, but ultimately really not by much.
The primary value is, if you happen to rely on this software and can't avoid it, then having any form of access to the source is better than being helpless to the usual black box. At least you can fully document mysteries that aren't fully documented, let alone maybe being able to debug or customize.
Here's an excerpt from the license:
- 1. Subject to the terms and conditions of this Public
License, the Licensor hereby grants You a worldwide,
royalty-free, non-sublicensable, non-exclusive, irrevocable
license to exercise the Licensed Rights in the Licensed
Material to:
- A. reproduce and Share the Licensed Material, in whole
or in part, for NonCommercial purposes only; and
- B. produce, reproduce, and Share Adapted Material for
NonCommercial purposes only.
I can "produce", "reproduce" and "share" the licensed material. I'm definitely not sharing it, so if "running the code" is allowed at all, it must fall under the "produce" or "reproduce" categories. The text is pretty clear that you can only "produce" and "reproduce" it for NonCommercial purposes as well, so what does that leave me with?
That's exactly an n-th example of why this non-commercial clause is bogus since the very beginning of CC, and particularly unadapted for software code: no one is able to define clearly what commercial means, and what perimeter it applies to.
Selling the code? (you're a software editor) You could say it's covered/forbidden by the license.
Selling the service the code gives when it is running? (you're a PaaS) You could say too.
Selling anything unrelated to the code and the running app (say, oranges), but using the app to organise privately within a corporation? (you could be a shop owner installing the software for yourself and your team within your own building) 1/ the license says nothing about it, 2/ if it were covered and forbidden, how would it be even enforceable?
Agree with you on this one and I'd go step further: CC licences in general are poor fit for software.
> Selling anything unrelated to the code and the running app (say, oranges), but using the app to organise privately within a corporation? (you could be a shop owner installing the software for yourself and your team within your own building)
CC disagree with that interpretation: https://wiki.creativecommons.org/wiki/NonCommercial_interpre... (also https://wiki.creativecommons.org/wiki/Defining_Noncommercial).
Excerpt (that I think is most relevant, but it's definitely a nuanced issue):
> uses by for-profit companies are typically considered more commercial [...] one exception to this pattern is in relation to uses by individuals that are personal or private in nature
Based on this, I think the common agreement would be that this is commercial use.
> how would it be even enforceable?
That's not a point for ignoring the license. If you download pirated movies, games, or other software, it's very unlikely you'll get caught, but you're still committing a crime.
However in this case, it actually can be enforcable. If the organization is eg. a startup that raises venture funding or is getting acquired, legal due dilligence will involve examination of all licences for software used.
That's not what I understand from these pages (that only reinforces that even to CC, NonCommercial is not a clear criteria).
They also note NonCommercial as “not primarily intended for or directed towards commercial advantage or monetary compensation.” which perfectly matches my 3rd case above.
For instance, you perfectly can print and display an NC image as a poster in your professional office, it's not "commercial".
> That's not a point for ignoring the license.
It's definitely an argument to ignore this part of the license: an unenforceable item is effectively void.
> If you download pirated movies, games, or other software, it's very unlikely you'll get caught, but you're still committing a crime.
Beware, that's different here. Downloading/uploading pirated items is illegal. Here, the NonCommercial clause is so ambiguous that even CC doesn't know how to put it. So its enforcement is even further delicate and open to interpretation.
Right, but this discussion is in context of software for planning work, not someone decorating an office.
Planning work is not the work, it's something around the work, similar to a poster (that could very well present information valuable to the work, but still not be the work you're selling in the end).