Licensing the code without allowing derivative works is controversial

[boamaod]

It's hard to imagine, what is the goal of not allowing derivative works.

If the goal is to discourage malicious server installations, license is no means to stop that. Only thing that I can imagine, is that benevolent derivations are not welcome for some reason. Why?

From press coverage in Estonian media [1] we can read that publishing the code is supposed to create basis for more widespread use of e-voting ("loob aluse e-hääletamise senisest laiemaks kasutamiseks"). As far as I can understand, disallowing publishing derivative code doesn't accord with that sentiment.

Why doesn't the restriction to non-commercial use suffice?

[1] http://www.postimees.ee/1297368/e-haaletamise-tarkvara-lahtekood-sai-avalikuks

[ppmotskula]

The same Postimees article clearly stated that the goal of making this code available to the public is to enable more specialists to technically analyze the system of e-voting ("kaasata asjatundjaid e-valimiste süsteemi tehnilisse analüüsimisse"). Of course they could've published it under a "homecooked" license or the Microsoft Reference Source License, but IMHO both those options would've been inferior to using a really well-known license.

[boamaod]

I totally cannot follow. Why would you need a "home cooked license" to allow derivative works?

[rafacouto]

I think "not allowing derivative works" is applicable when software is redistributed as another different product. If the project is contributed with new features or modifying old ones and software is continued with the original name and license then there will be no problems.

Although Creative Commons license is oriented to documents, it is applicable to software too. However, a specific software license like GPL, BSD or derivatives are more convenient in order to allow contributions, keep on copyright and ensure long life to the project.

Please authors, consider to change the current license right now, in the very beginning of development :)

[pietercolpaert]

CC BY NC ND is not open source, neither is it good to use it for software projects. I agree with ↑

[ppmotskula]

Dudes, the whole idea of publishing this code has been making it available for REVIEW. So cc-by-nc-nd corresponds with the objective. As far as I know, contributions are neither sought not really welcome.

[millette]

Seems to contradict the spirit of https://help.github.com/articles/github-terms-of-service#f-copyright-and-content-ownership in 1)

By setting your repositories to be viewed publicly, you agree to allow others to view and fork your repositories.

ND means you can make copies, not forks.

Perhaps a PDF version would be better?

[andris9]

Anyone who has clicked on the "Fork" button (currently 28) has been violating the license of this repo. "Opening" the code in GitHub is totally misleading, if the only purpose was to push it out for reviewing. Even PDF would have been a better solution.

This project is "view source", not "open source".

[oxydia]

If one steals it, he can make it better for the whole world. Maybe licensing won't matter in front of democracy.

[pietercolpaert]

@wolli - @andris9 is right. This has been marketed as an "open source" move while it isn't with the current license

@oxydia - that is an interesting idea

[ghost]

I agree with @boamaod, @oxydia and @andris9 . Either this initiative's originators are creating the wrong expectations ( inadvertently ) by choosing the wrong license, or they have made a mistake by putting this code here on github and are thereby creating confusion. @oxydia made a very good point. Licensing shouldn't matter. Especially not with software that is supposed to support democracy.

[svenheiberg]

Readme should clarify things

[pietercolpaert]

It doesn't. Please re-open. License still in contradiction with terms of github.

[ghost]

Agree with @pietercolpaert. Readme does not clarify anything, only takes a stance of which it is highly dubious that

1. it could be actually not in contradiction with github terms

2. the authors have truly grasped the core concept of what Open Source is truly about

[WhyNotHugo]

Since therer is no intention to generate revenue by the final product created with this source, what's the issue in making it free software (I belive it's considered open source as-is)?

I'm participating in a similar project in Argentina, and we're using an MIT license, and welcome other entities to reuse our code, since our goal is not to sell it or anything alike.

The goal of code review is not affected in any way by freeing the code.

If anyone wan't to create a malevolent branch, licensing issues won't stop that person anyway.

@pietercolpaert: Do note that this isn't against github's terms. However, by merely publishing the code on github, the authors have allowed anyone to fork it, though it is unclear if the fork can then be redistributed.