Why is The Bizarre Cathedral licence"non-free"?

  2008-10-26 01:30:02
For the past 26 weeks I’ve been producing the Bizarre Cathedral strips for Free Software Magazine. Every one of them is released under a Creative Commons Attribution-Non-commerical-Share Alike (BY-NC-SA) licence. Recently I’ve received a few pieces of mail saying this is a “non-free” licence and questioning my use of it here. Some of them are quite polite, others have demanded I change the licence immediately (presumably “or else”). I’m not going to change the license, and here’s why. Read Ryan Cartwright's reasons for his non-free licence atFreesoftware Magazine
  PNG Image  PNG Image  PNG Image
  Related tags  


This particular article has been collected via RSS syndication. We apologize if it's too brief.
If You wish to publish articles on LinuxStreet.net please contact us.


  Similar articles found on LinuxStreet  
ImageFSF updates document licence
ImageCathedral vs. Bazaar in HIT-OSS
ImageFree Software Foundation releases last-call draft of new GNU licence
ImageHow GPLv3 Tackles Licence Proliferation
ImageWhen licences clash
ImageWhy I choose copyleft for my projects
ImageThe release 1.1 of pragmasuite delayed free licence model for ...
ImageFSFE Welcomes KDE's Adoption of the Fiduciary Licence Agreement
ImageBig court win for open source licences
ImageToo many free operating systems? I don't think so.

Leave a comment on this article


Captcha

  
Check this if the code you see is not readable and resubmit the form.
(Data you entered will be preserved)



  

Comments (0)