What the developers want relicensing the skin ? Slowdown the adoption of roundcube ?
I don't believe roundcube will receive many contributions (talking about the skin) from the commercial users, like ISPs.
Why I will contribute with a code to be used in the default skin if I can't use it ?
On Sat, 29 May 2010 13:38:57 +0200, Jonas Meurer jonas@freesources.org wrote:
hey,
On 28/05/2010 Carlos Pasqualini wrote:
the change you make to the license of the Default Skin, as i can understand, makes so difficult for a company to use roundcube for commercial purposes.
The license http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/ states that you have lots of attributions but "Not commercial Use".
I think that roundcube needs to have a "base theme" (GPL, CC-by-sa, CC-by, etc) from which one can build themes without having legal
issues.
i agree with you that CC-by-nc is a bad license for the default skin. For example it's a reason to keep roundcube out of linux/bsd/... distributions.
i don't know whether relicensing the default skin is an option. if not, then a new default skin with a more permissive, really free license would be necessary.
FreeBSD, OpenBSD, NetBSD, Ubuntu, Debian and Fedora all have roundcube available as package/port, and they would need to drop/substitude the skin in order to update the package/port to latest version.
Suppose a webmaster, adapting a RC Theme to suit the graphical design
of
a given bussiness, with the new license that job cannot use the default skin as a start base; the new skin needs to be written from scratch!. For every new version of roundcube, the entire skin needs to be reviewed.
The other point, i'm even more worried about, is using roundcube as the webmail solution on a ISP, using the default skin. I'm reading the entire CC-by-nc license, but if this is a commercial use of the skin... ¿does it fit into the permissions granted by the Skin's license?
i would be less worried if the license was CC-by-sa
yes, version 3 of CC-by-sa would be good. even better would be a more permissive license. for debians point of view (as an example) see http://wiki.debian.org/DFSGLicenses
greetings, jonas
--- 8< --- detachments --- 8< --- The following attachments have been detached and are available for viewing. http://detached.gigo.com/rc/CT/kKMDZTUg/signature.asc Only click these links if you trust the sender, as well as this
message.
--- 8< --- detachments --- 8< ---