Questions, Answer:


Q: What does NRCOL stand for?

A: No Ridiculous Constraint Or Limits. 

Q: How is this license different from BSD or MIT licenses?

A: MIT and BSD licenses for some reason call themselves by location. For example, BSD
   is related to Berkley. But what does Berkley have to do with software produced by 
   someone that doesn't work or live in Berkley? 

   MIT is related to Massachusetts Institute of Technology. I don't see how MIT or 
   BSD make any sense in a license, since they are location related. 

   What if I've never been to Berkley or Massachusetts? What if you live in Africa, 
   China, or on planet Jupiter? Why does my and your software have anything to do 
   with Massachusetts or Berkley, or the planet Saturn for that matter? 

   Maybe it is an ego thing, and they want people to know about MIT and Berkley by 
   embedding it right in the license acronym? Do I advertise Z505 Software in my 
   license acronym?  No, because Z505 Software has nothing to do with NRCOL. NRCOL is
   a public license, why should it be tied to Z505 Software, or Canada, or USA, or 
   Alberta, or Edmonton, or Calgary, or Toronto? What do cities, and companies have 
   to do with worldly/global software licenses? Nothing. They don't belong in the 
   license.

   NRCOL developers still agree with the MIT/BSD license philosophy - they just 
   don't encourage or understand the point of embedding the city/state/institution 
   name into the license or the acronym.

Q: How does this differ from a Creative Commons, GNU GPL, Mozilla, or similar 
   license?

A: Less restrictive, and faster decision making. You spend less time reading the 
   license and trying to figure it out. We agree with some of the reasoning 
   behind GNU and Mozilla style licenses,  but NRCOL is easier to grasp onto 
   since it is simple: release, improve, and share your knowledge with the public. No
   ethical tyrannies, no political nonsense. All NRCOL expects is that you want to 
   help the public develop software, and hopefully you want to reduce the ridiculous 
   constraints, limits, and 6580 word essay style licenses with exception after 
   exception (GPL). NRCOL does not have as many strict requirements (strict is a 
   clash with freedom). 

Q: Doesn't public domain style licenses like MIT, BSD, and NRCOL encourage branching 
   instead of merging the sources back into the single branch? 

A: This assumption and biased mindset is nonsense. Look at how many linux 
   distributions there are. Why aren't all the linux distributions merged back into 
   one single branch? Merging all source into one branch is impossible in the real 
   world. People want a lite linux and people want a bloated linux. People want a 
   light web server or a bloated web server. People want a big text editor and a 
   small text editor.
   
   Microsoft has merged all their sources into Windows  NT (no longer is there a 
   Windows 98) so one could claim that Microsoft is better than linux and BSD since 
   Microsoft doesn't branch! Branching is possible with GNU licenses  or public 
   licenses. In fact, one could argue that branching doesn't occur as much in 
   proprietary software in many cases. Basically, even microsoft has much less 
   branches than GNU software has. If we are going to argue about branching, then one
   should use proprietary software since proprietary software branches less often. 

   Claiming that GNU protects software from being branched is like saying 
   that Microsoft Windows gives us one good and one true solution to our problems. 
   This attitude can also encourage bloatware. 
   
   No matter what license one chooses, there will always be branching. Even Linus 
   Torvalds tries to sway people into thinking that GPL discourages branching, and
   that one can use GPL without being tied to politics. However, this is obviously 
   not true. GPL represents GPL and the people behind it... And there are hundreds 
   of different linux branches (such as Ubuntu and Debian nonsense).  

   Side note: The linux kernel might even benefit from being branched since it is 
   becoming bloatware ruled by a single benevolent dictator who may or may not know 
   what he is doing or talking about at times. The author of MINUX (where Linus got 
   his ideas from for Linux) still had extremely valid points about software becoming
   monolithic bloatware, and even the latest MINUX is released under a BSD style 
   license. 
   
   Why would someone with a PhD like Andrew Tanenbaum release something in public 
   domain, aren't people that are smart supposed to GPL their code (sarcasm)? Why 
   would someone with a PhD talk about how software should be componentized and that 
   software should be moving away from monolithic bloatware? Is it possible that the 
   Best Products don't always make mainstream - many times semi-good products make 
   mainstream because of someone in the right place at the right time with better 
   marketing. Think about BATA vs VHS tapes.

   Even if the GPL discouraged branching like so many claim, that would still have 
   disadvantages.  i.e.  monolithic bloatware all merged  into one gigantic source 
   base. Sometimes, modularization is good, and public domain licenses can encourage 
   modularization - especially when plug-ins are not tied to the GPL and can be 
   installed in a program without ethical licensing worries. From a plug-in 
   perspective, public domain style licenses encourage businesses and people to 
   extend software without it being monolithicly tied to one gigantic religous 
   license that everyone disagrees about.

Q: If NRCOL is not restrictive, isn't it just a license where "anything goes"?

A: NRCOL has general aims and goals. It has to be structured in some way in order to
   describe to you what we mean. If no license file was given with your software at 
   all, people may be confused about what the copyright or license on the software 
   is. NRCOL at least notifies your customers that you chose this method of 
   software development (non-restrictive long term aims).

Q: Can one charge money for programs based on NRCOL licensed code?

A: Yes - NRCOL tries to tell you that perfect software would never contain any 
   restrictions - but get real, we live in a world that is not perfect. So you can 
   charge money for your program just as you could with a BSD or MIT license based 
   program. 

   NRCOL differs from other licenses, who only allow one to charge for SERVICES 
   around the software (GPL).  That is a simple loophole - charging for a service is 
   relaying the restriction elsewhere.  Charging for a service is restricting! NRCOL 
   feels that if you are going to charge  money by restricting the software, you 
   might as well charge for any sort of restriction - consulting costs, the time you 
   took to create the source code, the binary with or without source, the time it 
   took you to copy the software, etc. 
   
   Richard Stallman is seriously confused about
   free speech and charges people money for his consulting instead of software code
   (even though his consulting could be digitally replicated just as easy as 
   software using something called a microphone and a camera).

Q: What if some company takes my source code, and I don't get paid - they use it and 
   they don't submit back to me any reimbursement?

A: Start your own software company and build better software than they do. They will 
   probably hire you. Or your business will probably end up being better than theirs.

   There is this false fear that developers have that if they don't "protect" their 
   software with a GNU or Mozilla style license, it will immediately get stolen and 
   someone else will make a million dollars instantly. Usually what happens (and what
   happened to the inventor of NRCOL) is that public domain software authors get 
   contacted by companies to do work! Companies and businesses expect an author and 
   an expert to maintain a source base - and if they find this public source on the 
   internet, and an expert has his named stamped on the file, that expert is going 
   to have his phone ringing off the hook if a company really needs his software and 
   his expertise. In fact, one could detour companies from contacting him by 
   stamping the confusing mega verbose religious GNU GPL license in the file. 
   
   Releasing the source code into the public does not magically make one poor - in 
   fact, from real world experience, it allows one to become rich, if he wants. Do 
   you honestly think that if a lead programmer of BSD applied at a web hosting 
   company for a job, he wouldn't get hired? Do you honestly believe that the 
   authors of Apache web server would not get offered jobs from Google and similar 
   companies? And would Apache improve if one was being paid to work at Google on 
   the Apache server?  Do you honestly believe that linux branching of distributions 
   where authors make money from sending CD's in the mail, is any worse than BSD 
   branching into Solaris, NetBSD, FreeBSD, etc.? (there are three-four main BSD 
   branches, but about 558 different linux distributions and flavors.

   This "fear" that GNU licenses spread, the fear that one will lose all his 
   development to another author or company (magically) if he does not release under 
   GNU, is total nonsense.

   People waste so much time trying to protect their source code. The NRCOL 
   inventor  has had several companies contact him to MAINTAIN source code that he 
   wrote and offered into the public domain! 

   Most companies could care less that there is free source code out there - free 
   source code is useless without an expert behind it that can extend and maintain 
   it!  

   Source code is shared among elite programmers who understand it - the other 
   people don't know a thing about it and need you to maintain it for them! Build 
   companies this way, get contracts this way, make a living this way. Do what 
   you've always wanted - share your code with your elite friends. You'd be amazed 
   that offering source code into the public domain is not risky - it gets one 
   networked up with many more businesses. Whereas keeping the code private, or 
   keeping the code tied to a religous license (GPL) that is mega confused, can 
   detour business and detour progress.

Q: Is my software protected by warranty, or anything legal if released under NRCOL?

A: There is no warranty with NRCOL license. NRCOL believes intelligent users sort 
   out issues with software, and that a license cannot protect a user or guarantee
   the software functions perfectly. 

Q: What is NRCOL's view on copyright?

A: A symbol in the file should exist to notify who wrote something. A "copyright" 
   stamp is confusing, because everyone has different meanings of it.  Does the 
   copyright imply that you cannot use the code without permission? What if the code 
   was released publicly but still has copyright on it? What if a person dies but 
   had a copyright on the code? Who knows, copyright's are confusing. NRCOL on the 
   other hand flat out states that the code is public domain.

   It is of your best interest to stamp files with ~NRCOL along with your name so 
   that we know who has worked on the  file. But the stamp doesn't have to be a 
   copyright stamp. The copyright stamp has just become popular because people feel 
   they are protecting their data. But if you don't state any CONDITIONS about what 
   your copyright protects, it can be confusing. NRCOL stamps explain in the NRCOL  
   license file exactly why you stamped the file. Copyrights leave too many 
   questions to be answered. 

   Also, some source files get polluted with several copyright tags from different 
   developers. A NRCOL stamp does not pollute the source file, because you just have 
   to stamp it as NRCOL once - no date is required - then list your name in the 
   contributors section elsewhere in the file. Stamps such as multidate copyright 
   (2006, 2007, 2005, 2004, 2003) is source code pollution. One must maintain the 
   dates and pollute the file with dates, and then add additional dates elsewhere in 
   the project source file such as in source notes sections. Do we need all these 
   dates? 

   A "contributor list" should be used to record a history of who worked on the file,
   and to keep track of who would be the best person to contact about the file. If 
   strong trust is built between some of the authors of the document, they don't have
   to stamp the file wherever they make a change (i.e. in some source code you don't
   see stamps every few lines, because that takes extra time and becomes 
   redundant).   

   NRCOL believes that the NRCOL stamp shouldn't try to describe some magical 
   read-only protection like the © copyright is known for. 

   To reduce confusion, it is recommended that you use a NRCOL stamp instead of a 
   copyright, since some people interpret copyright symbols differently than others. 
   Copyrights just leave too many questions unanswered.

  We suggest stamps be in the following format:

    1. A ~NRCOL stamp at the top of the source file, no dates. NRCOL applies to the 
       file no matter what year
    2  A contributor list.
    3. Source notes - dates are okay here. 

  The ~NRCOL stamp should be at the top of the page

  If the file is source code, label as

   ~NRCOL Source Text

  If the file is a general document, label the document as

   ~NRCOL Document

  If the file is a text document, label the document as

   ~NRCOL Text Document

  If the file is a help document, label the document as

   ~NRCOL Help Document

   Your name is your screen name, initials, or your real name. A number can be used 
   to suffix your name. It is not required. The number helps distinguish John Smith 
   from another John Smith (i.e. JS005 and JS777). 

   However you still may wish to use copyright or copyleft marks if you are used
   to them or see some advantage. Just note that they cause confusion and are not
   as unrestricted as a simple NRCOL stamp.
   
Q: But isn't NRCOL restrictive, stopping someone from having the sources in certain 
   cases? 

A: Yes - life is not perfect. Charging money for consulting about GNU software is a 
   form of restriction too. Speech is no longer free if you charge for services 
   about software (on cruise ships). With NRCOL, we don't play games moving goal 
   posts by relaying restrictions over to services but not allowing anyone to hold 
   back the sources. 

   Ideally in a utopian world hardware and food would also be free since you could
   replicate them with a 3D printer and robots run off free Tesla electricity, and
   software would be free, and we would not release anything with a ponzi scheme
   attached to it. In the mean time while the world is not utopian, you can still
   charge for your binary file or for consulting or whatever you want.. But Richard 
   Stallman thinks only certain things can be charged for but not others which is 
   hypocrisy.
   
Q: How do I state what parts of my code are completely NRCOL, but some with certain
   restrictions?

A: You could modify the NRCOL license or use multiple licenses that are compatible, 
   however modifying the NRCOL license or using many different licenses makes it 
   more confusing to the users and other programmers.

Q: If anyone can modify the NRCOL license, isn't that too flexible?

A: LGPL and modified GPL licenses exist too. People are always modifying 
   other licenses. How many times have we seen a Modified GPL or LGPL, such as the
   Freepascal units included with their Run Time Library.

   A simple thing to do would be to not modify NRCOL and leave it as is. Just like 
   shipping your code with a BSD or MIT license is simpler than making exceptions to
   that license. But ultimately it is up to you.