Slashdot Mirror

if you don't know ABSOLUTELY EVEYRTHING about the subject.

Superheroes(TM) are brands.

Superheroes have always been in worse positions than any of us, because superheroes are unable to live for themselves. They are unable to shit, to fuck, to hurt, to die. Not even imaginably.

Superpowers exist to alleviate misery. And right now, with even superheroes defending themselves from the exact same attacks all of us regular ol' non-heroes are defending ourselves against - cowardice, fighting, and rampantly betraying our own kinds - each of us is in the same boat as Wolverine, Spiderman, Mr. Fantastic, Iron Man, and even...Captain America!!!, it is time for the wheels to turn again.

Not back to September 10th, 2001 (a fine day!), but forward to a future where those of us who choose to live freely and happily can do so without detriment to any others.

But, sorry, having the good guys become bad guys who are after the good guys who are now the bad guys is only making matters worse.

I read comics because I believe in hope, and the possibilities, and power of having dreams. Marvel and DC make comics because they want us to sell out those dreams for expensive books, unimaginative storylines, and cheap headlines.

Trademark the concept superhero? Impossible.

How so?

Because my soul is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 2.5 License.

Nuff said(TM)?

The Prior Art for this is found in all Basic Networking Security tech, as it is *group allow execute* tech =Tons of Prior art!

Agreed - DRM today reflects only 2 levels of traditional and restrictive copyright use (deny and deny). Creative commons use allows for many different levels of artist allowed uses (allow all use, allow many different levels and types of agreed upon by license of varieties and choices by artist's of "some use", that is automaticly understood by user, by license, and with "allow only" coding could be also understood easily by a users computer, or classes of devices for certain commercial uses as defined by creative commons licensed works related commercial use laws for certain devices used in certain businesses, laws that don't exist today)!

The bonus is that PRIOR ART EXISTS ALREADY... as the software is just an IF, THEN loop. Or similar to enabling or allowing users via standard network file access permissions to any files on any network that has been built. As prior art - this is basic stuff and the tech is not new at all, as it is a simple *allow* *execute* *group name associated with level of license* of a creative commons copyrighted file THAT IS JUST EXACTLY LIKE THE TECH USED FOR CONTROLING ACCESS TO FILES ON ANY NETWORK THAT HAS EXISTED SINCE THE BEGINNING OF NETWORK SECURITY. Any Digital distribution system that would be using this creative commons permission "allowed for file execute or file allowed by filter", is using the same networking and security tech that has been in existence since many can remember! Computers on networks have been using login based permissions for one heck of a long time! Even the concept of a creative commons license level, as a "group", really, is not new, where it would only be allowing execution of a file given that the correct group is allowed (except that the metatag defines the group and contains the information as to the ID of the user group, or creative commons license level ALLOWED)!

Creative commons license filtering is not DRM at all.

http://creativecommons.org/

For example - How the artist is protected is evident. If you go to MagnaTune.com and click on buy something you will see options! If you want to play in a bar, or on a telephone music on hold device, or whatever there is a price for that sone listed there. Does the creative commons license extend to this level of allowed use (where it could say that certain classes of commercial use are allowed - like is available at Magnatune)?

Magnatune offers fully automated licensing of rights-cleared music in a wide variety of genres. "Automated licensing" means that with a few clicks of the mouse, you can get high quality music and a valid legal agreement to use it. There's no waiting, no negotiating. All licensing quotes are exactly the same for all buyers, and we will not ask to see your work to approve the use."

Magnatune is just an example and this is no ad for their services.

---> Hmmm, so allow by artist's choice of creative commons license and terms with that license. Filterable for enforcment... No DRM court.

Title: Use Creative Commons idea(s) not DRM!

To: those who want to protect digital copyright... use Creative Commons!

Can Creative Commons protect works for "commercial only" purposes?

If so, then...

Use Creative Commons, with a meta-data tag, that gives a digital file a digital ID that is search-able, filterable, and then protect that meta-data from changes or removal by creating a law that prevents the change or removal of a file or it's meta-data. ISP's could filter the meta-data - like how anti-virus software works, and notify a user (ISP has their email address for billing purposes) that the users account is being used to exceed "fair use" of copyrighted material, beyond a quota, or established "fair-use" limit. Of course Creative Commons or the government needs to establish a Creative Commons style of "commercial only" license with a way to register (on-line) a creators digital meta-data. Shareable meta-data (See Creative Commons Share-alike) would be not filtered or audited, only commercial only meta-data would be filtered. The notification process would first be friendly, then a process of questioning by the ISP could happen if the "commercial only creative commons meta-data" continued to be shared beyond fair use! If all friendly attempts to stop the infringer from exceeding fair use quota did not affect the traffic the ISP could then notify a central world wide infringer data base providing a "hidden" Pseudonym email address to the database where others could email this Pseudonym address and the ISP would then forward the email to the infringer (the creator of the works, owner of copyright, or fans of the work could then ask the infringer to stop (could be digital and automatic once the infringer's pseudonym email address hit the database listing the files meta-data along with the pseudonym's email address. Friendly notification, only amplified could continue, before enforcement action via law suit or criminal process could continue. IP v6 could allow an ISP customer a "assigned IP address" and even if the user had a open wireless network that was usable by anyone, they could be advised in a friendly way to investigate the users of the network or be able to "block the sending of certain files on their network" at a central router or firewall. Final penalty for user who infringes on "commercial only creative commons copyright digital meta-data" would be the termination of the Internet account by the ISP (private ISP or public if the municipality were providing free Internet access)! No one would like to loose their Internet access, would be worse than fines (as a repeat infringer could be targeted in a database with the risk of being black listed for X amount of time from using other ISPs). Of course, other Internet anonymous use could continue as only "commercial only" meta-data would be filtered or audited! China does a similar thing now to control Internet access there, only in violation of human rights. Blocking content is possible as well and the creative commons license, once violated, revokes future use of the licensed work (meaning that the ISP could block that one file from being shared, etc). Auditing traffic of certain file types is possible because of the meta-data idea with creative commons! 12 year olds sharing files should not be criminal, yet does need attention of parents who don't want to lose their Internet access due to illegal sharing. Remember that Creative commons can also have meta-data for sharable works that use the various degrees of creative commons protection and notification of the terms of use with the license.

No DRM at all!

Friendly to all.

See Creative Commons web site and use your imagination as to see how easy this would be to get going all over the world.

http://www.creativecommons.org

The music, movie, and other artist's are a bit paranoid. Some industry folks have a second interest in DRM (protected by law), and that is to profit from the sale of many diffe

What would be nice is if the gaming companies could be convinced to include a clause that allows free trading/no-cd patching etc. of a game after an elapsed period of X number of years.

In fact, it's not that hard with Creative Commons' Founders' Copyright project.

Good sir, have you recently checked on the price of textbooks? A university level text cost between AU$60 and AU$120. Highschool texts probibly don't cost any less than $40 each. Per subject.

If you do not see the value of having a computer (and the access to cheap media that goes with it) for less than the cost of a single years texts, then you perhaps ought to step back from the issue.

The Open Source Licences (Creative Commons is a great example http://creativecommons.org/license/?jurisdiction=a u ) work very well for teaching texts. In five years, a whole curriculum of international standard could be available for the use of developing countries. For free.

So, you are perfectly right, computers are not in fact strictly necessary.

You are also an obtuse asshat.

Midnight9

Creative Commons is a set of licenses that vary significantly. There is no single "Creative Commons license".

In this particular case, the license in question is Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 2.0.

The differences between the licenses are important because some of the CC licenses permit the kind of use that this case was about, and the particular license he used does not.

Useful now?

Since principles are important to you, let me offer a bit of advice, take from it what you will. 1) Make your music available in .ogg format, many free-software zealots are too lazy/morally opposed/lawful to install the mp3 playing plug in. Good example, fedora core 4 does not come with mp3 playing capability installed by default due to patents. 2) Use a Creative Commons http://creativecommons.org/ license on the music, preferable by-sa, put some of the tracks up on op sound. 3) Aggressively advertise 4) Consider taking commissions/requests for pay. 5) Consider ads for you website. Don't put too many ads however or the site becomes unreadable.

Isn't the creative commons license actually a list of licenses?
http://creativecommons.org/about/licenses/meet-the -licenses

Specifically licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 2.5 license.

"Creative Commons" is far too vague to be meaningful.

And blaming the mozilla foundation is blaming the exact wrong "side" for any difficulity explaining licences to people.

The Mozilla Foundation explains the licensing in plain english. The GPL always had an "English" preamble. And creative commons even has "deeds" that are as clear as language can get including translations in plenty of languages and icons representing a certain use. (creativecommons.org even has a "wizard" for people who want to select a license)

I am still, However, looking for a human readable version of microsofts licensing policy. As far as I know I would have to figure out what constitutes:
A. an educational/business/goverment organisation
B. a computer (Maybe a mainboard, maybe a processor, maybe a procesor core, maybe something with a mac address plus a set of PCI identifiers and a processor serial number)
C. a "software upgrade" (Didn`t you have to buy your dells with an installed microsoft OS because the organisational licensing only is about "updates" to this OS?)
D. a hurricane victim (tsunami victims need not apply)

Its all explained in this 44 page word file.

So yes, licensing is confusing for "normal people" or busineses. But when you work together with Microsoft (Through the BSA or other lobbyists) to make people follow licenses... then you could get help from their side by asking for understanable licences to enforce.

While on the whole your argument has value, there are a few problems, the main one of which is this: in order for such a model to exist, the IRA or a new IRA-like government institution would have to exist to keep track of when you made your money back from said product. Also, I don't think "investment + 10%" is enough of an incentive for companies to use this model. Investment + 50% maybe, or perhaps investment * 2.

In the end, I think copyright should exist, but be vastly more limited than it is now, especially in time span; life + 70 years is WAY too long, especially considering that 50% of businesses fail in their first year of operation. Something like the Creative Commons Founders' Copyright would do much better and allow things to enter the public domain naturally, while still allowing businesses to be profitable as long as they're providing value to the public.

Well, the creative commons typically used by Flickr, is simply a means of easily defining the rights you are providing. It can mean a number of things, and I think he has a point - that its confusing; you have to read the rights for every bit of work, rather than being able to trust that a creative commons mark means you have certain rights.

A CC license means you can always copy, distribute, display, and perform the work. In addition you may have other conditional freedoms not granted by traditional copyright (or the code-centric licenses).

I guess I see what you mean about having "to read the rights for every bit of work", but you have to admit that Creative Commons streamlines this to the point that it's nearly idiot proof. I think it's disingenuous to say it's confusing. Click on the "CC button" (the link to the license) for any page covered with a CC license and you'll get something this: Creative Commons- By Attribution (CC-BY for short). Thanks to the Commons Deeds, the only time you'd ever need to delve into the legalese of the actual license are the same times you'd grab a lawyer for any other 'open' license (i.e., you are about to include GPL code in a closed, commercial product; you are about to publish a music compilation of other people's works).

I think Lessig is right for the same reason I think the Framers were right. Copyright does serve a purpose as long as time-limited monopolies promote science and the useful arts. The constitution gives no other reason for State granted monopolies. That's the trade-off -- a bigger commons in exchance for short/fixed-term monopolies.

That said, Open Source has not diluted the principle (as the Creative Commoms may have) by retaining a clear statement about what is and is not Open Source.

If the principle is constitutional copyright, Creative Commons has not diluted it. Copyleft by contrast stands completely counter to these goals (as a reaction to copyright, rather than a refinement). In this respect, it doesn't matter what RMS says about CC, because the arenas are completely seperate (I can't think of anyone using CC for code, just like no one is using GPL for music/film). http://creativecommons.org/weblog/entry/5771. The needs of Free Software and Open Source software (software freedom and code freedom) are just plain different from other forms of Free Art (creative freedeom). If code were an art that existed in a vacuum, in that there were times you didn't want to make derivatives, forks, plugins, extensions, libraries or enhancements, etc. only then would CC even be relevant (code is a very utilitarian art -- I've never written a program just to look at it, or read it). One size fits all is almost always wrong, isn't it?

In closing, Copyleft is very necessary as long as copyright exists; Creative Commons is also very necessary until copyright is reformed world-wide.

Sorry for the rambling post. :-)

Well, the creative commons typically used by Flickr, is simply a means of easily defining the rights you are providing. It can mean a number of things, and I think he has a point - that its confusing; you have to read the rights for every bit of work, rather than being able to trust that a creative commons mark means you have certain rights.

A CC license means you can always copy, distribute, display, and perform the work. In addition you may have other conditional freedoms not granted by traditional copyright (or the code-centric licenses).

I guess I see what you mean about having "to read the rights for every bit of work", but you have to admit that Creative Commons streamlines this to the point that it's nearly idiot proof. I think it's disingenuous to say it's confusing. Click on the "CC button" (the link to the license) for any page covered with a CC license and you'll get something this: Creative Commons- By Attribution (CC-BY for short). Thanks to the Commons Deeds, the only time you'd ever need to delve into the legalese of the actual license are the same times you'd grab a lawyer for any other 'open' license (i.e., you are about to include GPL code in a closed, commercial product; you are about to publish a music compilation of other people's works).

I think Lessig is right for the same reason I think the Framers were right. Copyright does serve a purpose as long as time-limited monopolies promote science and the useful arts. The constitution gives no other reason for State granted monopolies. That's the trade-off -- a bigger commons in exchance for short/fixed-term monopolies.

That said, Open Source has not diluted the principle (as the Creative Commoms may have) by retaining a clear statement about what is and is not Open Source.

If the principle is constitutional copyright, Creative Commons has not diluted it. Copyleft by contrast stands completely counter to these goals (as a reaction to copyright, rather than a refinement). In this respect, it doesn't matter what RMS says about CC, because the arenas are completely seperate (I can't think of anyone using CC for code, just like no one is using GPL for music/film). http://creativecommons.org/weblog/entry/5771. The needs of Free Software and Open Source software (software freedom and code freedom) are just plain different from other forms of Free Art (creative freedeom). If code were an art that existed in a vacuum, in that there were times you didn't want to make derivatives, forks, plugins, extensions, libraries or enhancements, etc. only then would CC even be relevant (code is a very utilitarian art -- I've never written a program just to look at it, or read it). One size fits all is almost always wrong, isn't it?

In closing, Copyleft is very necessary as long as copyright exists; Creative Commons is also very necessary until copyright is reformed world-wide.

Sorry for the rambling post. :-)

True true. Stallman is not saying that CC is bad; he is saying that he can no longer endorse CC, because "CC" is an umbrella term and some of their licenses restrict the four freedoms. As far as I understand, Stallman is not against people licensing their works under a plain share alike.

He is the mouthpiece for the FS movement, and he chooses the words very carefully. And plugs the GPL, of course. None of this is controversial if you were following what he was saying all along.

I am by no means an expert of Creative Commons licenses, but Stallman does not feel that is the case.

Every license on the http://creativecommons.org/licenses/ page allows you to make a copy and give it to your friend. They don't meet the Free Software definition, because some don't allow derivation or commercial use, but everyone one allows you to make a copy and give it to your friend.

That's up to interpretation. The way I see it, Creative Commons doesn't give you anything that intellectual property law doesn't give you already. If I published a novel, I could include a license on the front page that lets people copy it.

Well duh! That's not the point.

The point is that when you buy a music CD, the status quo (as in 99% of the CDs for sale) do not have a license that allows you to make a copy and give it to your friend. Ditto for 99% of the books in a bookstore. The CC licenses are unabashedly rejecting the status quo.

I'm talking about the standard CC licenses. I have no idea what licenses you're talking about. Look at this page: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/, every license there allows you to make a copy and give it to your friend. Every one. I can't find a "Developing Nations" license anywhere.

* Lawrence Lessig, Professor of Law at Stanford University

Guess who the Chairman of the Board of Directors of Creative Commons is?

* Richard M. Stallman, Founder of FSF and the GNU Project and author of the GNU GPL
...
Please recall that FSF!=RMS and vice versa.

I thought the entire point of the CC licenses was to give people a choice past "All Rights Reserved". The way the law reads currently, I inherently hold exclusive copyrights to all my works, regardless of whether or not I put a (c) on the site. However, using a CC-license, I can not only choose, but show exactly what I'm ok and not ok with people doing. That's a lot of freedom, and it still allows me to protect what little work is mine.

I do not believe that writing and code are all that similar, and I do not support the concept that the laws for each should be identical.

With code, so much of what you're doing is following the rules of the language. These rules are exact, and tend to have problems when they're disobeyed (I.E. Windows). You'll end up breaking the reality of the machine when you use improper code. That being said, sharing your code allows for people to catch errors you missed, as well as add things that will make the code run better. I think it's terrible to see good code rot because people won't share.

However, with writing, there are no rules.

You can say there are rules of grammar, and I can point to a dozen different poems or pieces of writing that violate those rules. In fact, any rule you come up with about writing exists only because some people thought it should, not because it won't work if you don't. Reality (even the implied reality of a good novel) will not be harmed by improper word usage. Not unduly, any way.

That being said, when the code works, the program runs, and the inner workings of the code become irrelevant except as a reference. I believe (and this is just my opinion) that the code is only half of what makes a program work. The other half is presentation, craft, and usability (I think they're interchangable). If you have a graphics program, it can be using marvelous code, but it still also needs to be a usable graphics program, with a working interface and useful manuals and all that jazz. The code alone (again, in my humble opinion)does not a program make.

When the writing works, it must do so without hiding. The words are their own reward. They don't run anything. It's not like someone can change two lines and make a more stable code. It is only what it is. (A notable exception to this is Dr.Suess, comic books, and other illustrated pieces, which rely as well on the art and layout to work, but that's a different rant). A good book must exist independent of it's cover.

And unfortunately, this need to exist independent of all other influences is what makes a novel that much easier to steal. And I don't mean steal in the Intellectual Property sense, where you download a book to read off the net. I mean steal like you open that book with a text editor and replace the author's name with your own. That kind of theft eliminates the author, and removes the ability for any kind of credit. Sometimes this is done out of fun, and that's one thing, but other times people do it and then make money off it. One of the biggest places where this kind of theft occurs is in the poetry world, which is doubly sad since poetry pays so little.

I believe in sharing my work openly, but I'm not going to force anyone to give up their rights to protection. So I gladly use and support CC-licencing. Which allows me to say: Hey, read this. If you like it, share it, but please don't sell it or claim it as your own.

To quote the site:
"a single goal unites Creative Commons' current and future projects: to build a layer of reasonable, flexible copyright in the face of increasingly restrictive default rules."

--Joe

http://creativecommons.org/ is what you want. Private actions ahead of the Gov. and without the cost triumphs again!

I don't believe in any intellectual property.

Because if your company truly is "No Copyright", then that means everything that your artists make will be Public Domain, which means the public can use it however they want...

Perhaps you should rethink things a bit and keep the Inellectual Property idea, but be more lenient with it a la Creative Commons licensing.

Remember, Copyright is what keeps your creations out of the hands of those who would rip you off, just like it is what allows the GPL to keep code open and free.

Don't get me wrong. I do like your ideas, but I really think you need copyright to make them work, otherwise you will simply get the less scrupulous profitting off of your and your artists's hard work with no reward for you. Seriously, consider Creative Commons. It is AWESOME!

I don't believe in any intellectual property.

Because if your company truly is "No Copyright", then that means everything that your artists make will be Public Domain, which means the public can use it however they want...

Perhaps you should rethink things a bit and keep the Inellectual Property idea, but be more lenient with it a la Creative Commons licensing.

Remember, Copyright is what keeps your creations out of the hands of those who would rip you off, just like it is what allows the GPL to keep code open and free.

Don't get me wrong. I do like your ideas, but I really think you need copyright to make them work, otherwise you will simply get the less scrupulous profitting off of your and your artists's hard work with no reward for you. Seriously, consider Creative Commons. It is AWESOME!

I'm a developer of the Geograph website.

I'd disagree that we should "combine efforts" with other sites just because they use the same licence. One useful element of the Creative Commons licence is the machine readable licence embedded into webpages and media to enable search engines to locate them.

It's up to search engines to tap into this, and the efforts from Google and Yahoo (see http://creativecommons.org/find/) are a great first step.

Why? Why not use a Creative Commons License, and place no restrictions? Or simply ask for attribution as your only restriction? While I understand a distaste for copyright on philosophical grounds, by disregarding it completely you are actually making your work less attractive to most people.

You mean "Sony v. Universal Studios"

Yes, thanx. That's the right title of the Betamax case. I wasn't paying attention and I wrote it wrong.

determine if there are substantial non-infringing uses

I'd like to quote the Supreme Court's exact rule: "it need merely be capable of substantial noninfringing uses".

That is in fact a rather difficult test to fail. I am not aware of any product ever failing that test. The Supreme Court knew full well that it was a test that was almost impossible to fail, and they explained themselves quite well why they ruled that way. That an innocent inventor creating a new product for some legitimate purpose cannot be expected to have some crystal ball to know what percentage of users will use it in what way, and that he is not responsible for people who turn that product to some other illegal use. The basic principal that spoon inventors and spoon sellers are not responsible if people start using spoons to commit murder.

as we recently saw in the Grokster case, the key phrase is "non-infringing uses".

No, you are misstating the Grokster case. The Grokster result had absolutely nothing to do with non-infringing uses.

The Grokster case absolutely affirms the Betamax ruling that Grokster cannot be sued simply for making P2P software, even if that software is overwhelmingly used to infringe. That Betamax is an almost absolute shield against being sued for making and providing a product.

What Grokster says is that that does not prevent you from being sued for doing other things. Well duh, if you commit murder while selling VCRs, Betamax is obviously not a sheild against being held liable for that other illegal act.

Grokster did not lose for making and providing the P2P product that they did. That was perfectly legal.

What Grokster was held liable for was something completely separate. They were held liable for running advertizements essentially telling people to commit infringment. They would have been liable for that even if they had not been providing P2P software at all.

Grokster would have won had the P2P product been exactly the same, if only they didn't tell people they should use it to break the law.

I can sell spoons, but I am going to lose just like Grokster lost if I run ads saying that you should use my spoons to run around gouging random people's hearts out.

Spoons are legal and Grokster's P2P is legal. Telling someone to commit a crime is not.

As presented, there are very few non-infringing uses for the device qua file-sharing device since everyone involved in the sharing must have the copyright holder's permission to share the files.

Did you even read my whole post before jumping to post? How did you possible miss the part where I stated that I have an entire folder on my computer of public domain and Creative Commons music files, and that is is absolutely legal for anyone and everyone to distribute and redistribute those files as much as they like. iRate alone has probably close to a hundred thousand such songs that are perfectly legal to redistribute, and I am aware of many other sources for tons more music that is perfectly legal to redistribute.

You can even do an Advanced Google search restricted to Creative Commons works that are free to share. Doing a "free to share" search on the term MP3 gets over 3 million hits. The Creative Commons website has many links to sites with free to share content. And this website has a bazillion links to free music, many of which are explicitly free to redistribute.

-

I believe that the using/copying/etc of any sort of "intellectual property" should be legal for non-commerical uses. I would say that copyright should look more like the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial license.

Instead of getting nowhere by going through the same discussion (that is, whether filesharing is legal, illegal or something between) again and again, I think we should bring up the question if information should be public property; this seems pretty much the debate in the Internet age. RMS has had some arguments for free software in his essay. The text may (!!) make some sense when you replace the word 'software' with 'music' (though a piece of music isn't something that evolves continuously). Of course the music creators want credit for their work, so what about a Creative Commons license for every piece of music? Why couldn't it work?

Short version -- Google should use an algorithm similar to AdSense to automatically pick keywords most relevant to the advertiser's URL.

You should have to pay less to bid on keywords that are relevant to your web site's content. It should be expensive to outbid Mr. Cringely on the keyword "Cringely".

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 2.5 License.

Short version -- Google should use an algorithm similar to AdSense to automatically pick keywords most relevant to the advertiser's URL.

You should have to pay less to bid on keywords that are relevant to your web site's content. It should be expensive to outbid Mr. Cringely on the keyword "Cringely".

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 2.5 License.

IANAL but I think so; Yes, really.

Creative Commons has many flexible licences.

http://creativecommons.org/about/licenses/meet-the -licenses

It looks like he would find one or a combination of these would suit him quite well

Parent post:

I like his reference to the Creative Commons and how useful it is in such a situation.

FTFA:

One thing I'll be doing shortly to further protect my show is to acquire a Creative Commons license. This will allow me to secure rights sufficient to fend off podjackers, without scaring people away from making use of my show in a fair and legitimate way. To learn more about this kind of license, visit: http://creativecommons.org/.

Sounds like Mr Podjacked should be the one learning more about Creative Commons, if he thinks that acquiring such a license will help secure his rights and "further protect" his show. Last I heard, CC is about offering additional rights above and beyond the norm, not somehow validating or restricting those rights defined by law.

"4. c) ... You must keep intact all copyright notices for the Work ..."

1. ... provided that you conspicuously and appropriately publish on each copy an appropriate copyright notice ...

Given the fact that they've licensed their own contributions to this code under a GPL-like Creative Commons license, them prohibiting the use of any patents involved with such licenses would be bizarre to say the least.

"Royalty-free" means the part that the grandparent ignores/doesn't see because it conflicts with the biased worldview that he prefers. In this view, if the words "royalty-free" were even read, they were read to mean "free to charge a royalty". This is an embodiment of the famous catchphrase "I reject your reality and substitute my own."

To the rest of us, this means that they cannot charge fees to developers coding under the RAND license, and the users that chose to use that code. Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 2.5 license. They cannot charge fees even if patents issue, due to promissory estoppel (i.e., the promise referenced in the great-grandparent post).

Not so "proprietary". Here is the license it uses: Creative Commons, Attribution-ShareAlike 2.5.

Also here is a blog post by its creator if you want to read more about and what it is meant to accomplish without digging through the spec.

Not bad!

FTFA: Microsoft's copyrights in this specification are licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License.

This license is more simple, but the same in principle, to the GPL.

This is definitely an interesting point. I read the license and I'm still not sure when the use is considered to be commercial.

There's probably some more info at the creative commons site. Most Creative Commons licenses seem to be quite restrictive for my taste.

I'm sorry but that's not correct. The Sampling+ license does not prevent commercial usage:
"You may not use this work to advertise for or promote anything but the work you create from it."
( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/sampling+/1.0/ )

This means -for example- you can't use Sampling+ sounds for a commercial for a car (without asking the original author for permission). But this doesn't mean you can't use a sound in a commercial application. ANother thing people tend to forget is that the original author obviously keeps the right to do whatever he wants with the sample. So, if you really WANT to use a sound in a commercial, you can just ask for permission.

  - bram

How about this instead, since it actually is (new as opposed to dup) News for Nerds. Stuff that Matters.:

The Creative Commons organization is running their first annual Fall Fundraising Campaign. This isn't simply about raising money, it is necessary to maintain their status as a non-profit organization in the eyes of the IRS. Larry Lessig explains the importance of this effort: 'Today, Creative Commons launches a fund raising campaign. The trigger is some bizarrely complicated requirement of the IRS that nonprofits demonstrate not just support from some large, wise, foundations, but also "public support." So we've got an (urgent) need to demonstrate that support, through, well, [individual] support.' Thus far they have only reached 21% of their stated goal. Over fifty-million objects on the internet link to a CC License. This important work needs to continue unfettered by the IRS or otherwise. Get a button, spread the word.

How about this instead, since it actually is (new as opposed to dup) News for Nerds. Stuff that Matters.:

The Creative Commons organization is running their first annual Fall Fundraising Campaign. This isn't simply about raising money, it is necessary to maintain their status as a non-profit organization in the eyes of the IRS. Larry Lessig explains the importance of this effort: 'Today, Creative Commons launches a fund raising campaign. The trigger is some bizarrely complicated requirement of the IRS that nonprofits demonstrate not just support from some large, wise, foundations, but also "public support." So we've got an (urgent) need to demonstrate that support, through, well, [individual] support.' Thus far they have only reached 21% of their stated goal. Over fifty-million objects on the internet link to a CC License. This important work needs to continue unfettered by the IRS or otherwise. Get a button, spread the word.

How about this instead, since it actually is (new as opposed to dup) News for Nerds. Stuff that Matters.:

The Creative Commons organization is running their first annual Fall Fundraising Campaign. This isn't simply about raising money, it is necessary to maintain their status as a non-profit organization in the eyes of the IRS. Larry Lessig explains the importance of this effort: 'Today, Creative Commons launches a fund raising campaign. The trigger is some bizarrely complicated requirement of the IRS that nonprofits demonstrate not just support from some large, wise, foundations, but also "public support." So we've got an (urgent) need to demonstrate that support, through, well, [individual] support.' Thus far they have only reached 21% of their stated goal. Over fifty-million objects on the internet link to a CC License. This important work needs to continue unfettered by the IRS or otherwise. Get a button, spread the word.

Interesting bits from the MS page you linked:

The objective of Simple Sharing Extensions (SSE) is to define the minimum extensions necessary to enable loosely-cooperating apps

[snip]

Microsoft's copyrights in this specification are licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License (version 2.5). To view a copy of this license, please visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/. As to software implementations, Microsoft is not aware of any patent claims it owns or controls that would be necessarily infringed by a software implementation that conforms to the specification's extensions. If Microsoft later becomes aware of any such necessary patent claims, Microsoft also agrees to offer a royalty-free patent license on reasonable and non-discriminatory terms and conditions to any such patent claims for the purpose of publishing and consuming the extensions set out in the specification.

I'm as suspicious of MS as the next guy, but it looks like, at least in this case and at this moment, they're trying to play nice. Give 'em a chance. They don't seem to be trying to crowd anybody out, and aren't trying to extend the standard beyond recognition ("minimum necessary").

I think if everyone just takes a deep breath and realizes that the OSS Spaghetti Monster doesn't mind fair contributions from other camps, maybe everyone can benefit by a modernized and more functional RSS standard.

MS gets their app interoperability, OSS gets some good ideas and even gets to use them without fear of patent infringement (per last paragraph). Everybody wins.

Too bad I don't have mod points for you, man, and too bad your comment is buried at the bottom. To all the wankers already going off about MS patenting the specs:

Take a look at the licensing information - get to the source.

Ok, if you really are that lazy, it's a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 2.5, which means you only have to credit MS for this stuff, and release your own stuff (plugin/library?) under the same license.

Microsoft is releasing this spec under a Creative Commons license. So perhaps it's not evil, or at least they're doing a better job of hiding the evil part!

Thank you for your on-topic post! It is appalling that their hasn't been more discussion on the issue considering how important to us it is, individually & collectively.

Doc has a great quote from Larry Lessig in his article on the second front of this battle, the copyfight. The extremists in that front are not Lessig & Creative Commons (as many entities would have us believe) but the:

...copyright extremists of the Sonny Bono school, which favors extension of copyright to "forever less one day". In... [the other front of the] debate the radicals are the carriers. We need to fight them, just as Larry and crew need to fight the copyright extremists: by re-framing the subject.

This war to keep the net free (as in unrestricted access to content) is being fought on two fronts and both should be considered equally important, IMO. The writing on the wall regarding copyright issues has been there since the Copyright Term Extension act hit the legislative fan. The carrier front was announced to the masses right here just a couple weeks ago, and (in general) summarily dismissed--I think most of us thought the SBC guy was just plain nuts since we're all already paying for connections. I'm very glad to see this articl by Doc Searls laying out issues of both battlefronts. He closes that right now is the time for us to act on these issues, and he's absolutely correct.

Creative Commons is having a fund raiser and the response has been woefully lacking thus far. It's not even so much about money. They could lose their non-profit status if they can't show support from individuals!

Are we members of EFF? I don't necessarily agree with every position they take but at least they keep me informed on what subversive anti-free-internet proposals are working their way through congress, and how I can help stop them. May I suggest the following actions based on Docs article:

1. We have to stay informed (join EFF or at least sign up for their e-mail bulletins)
2. We have to support the organizations fighting for our freedoms.(Five bucks right now towards Creative Commons isn't going to kill anybodys budget. If you can afford to access the internet, you're probably NOT destitute. If you blog post a button for them.)
3. We have to be freedom fighters and do what we can (i.e. call our reps & senators) to assist in this cause.

If we sit back and assume that the freedoms we enjoy on the internet today are just going to go on forever, without taking any action to ensure this happens, then we have already lost, haven't we?

Thank you for your on-topic post! It is appalling that their hasn't been more discussion on the issue considering how important to us it is, individually & collectively.

Doc has a great quote from Larry Lessig in his article on the second front of this battle, the copyfight. The extremists in that front are not Lessig & Creative Commons (as many entities would have us believe) but the:

...copyright extremists of the Sonny Bono school, which favors extension of copyright to "forever less one day". In... [the other front of the] debate the radicals are the carriers. We need to fight them, just as Larry and crew need to fight the copyright extremists: by re-framing the subject.

This war to keep the net free (as in unrestricted access to content) is being fought on two fronts and both should be considered equally important, IMO. The writing on the wall regarding copyright issues has been there since the Copyright Term Extension act hit the legislative fan. The carrier front was announced to the masses right here just a couple weeks ago, and (in general) summarily dismissed--I think most of us thought the SBC guy was just plain nuts since we're all already paying for connections. I'm very glad to see this articl by Doc Searls laying out issues of both battlefronts. He closes that right now is the time for us to act on these issues, and he's absolutely correct.

Creative Commons is having a fund raiser and the response has been woefully lacking thus far. It's not even so much about money. They could lose their non-profit status if they can't show support from individuals!

Are we members of EFF? I don't necessarily agree with every position they take but at least they keep me informed on what subversive anti-free-internet proposals are working their way through congress, and how I can help stop them. May I suggest the following actions based on Docs article:

1. We have to stay informed (join EFF or at least sign up for their e-mail bulletins)
2. We have to support the organizations fighting for our freedoms.(Five bucks right now towards Creative Commons isn't going to kill anybodys budget. If you can afford to access the internet, you're probably NOT destitute. If you blog post a button for them.)
3. We have to be freedom fighters and do what we can (i.e. call our reps & senators) to assist in this cause.

If we sit back and assume that the freedoms we enjoy on the internet today are just going to go on forever, without taking any action to ensure this happens, then we have already lost, haven't we?

on Nov 5, according to the Creative Commons site, Google started providing a search that let you find content filtered according to what rights/permissions are bound to the content.

There are two serious problems with the parent post that should be preventing it from getting modded informative...

1. Patent and copyright law is not written directly into the constitution. Rather, congress is granted the authority to make such laws for the purpose of promoting the arts. It was intentionally left out of the constitution, because many of the Founders opposed copyright and hoped that it could be eliminated completely, and they didn't want to require a constitutional amendment to do so.

2. A century has nothing to do with copyright law; copyrights currently last for the author's lifetime plus 70 years. More imporantly, the original founder's copyright law in 1790 stated that copyrights expired after 14 years, and could be renewed at that time for one additional 14 year period. After that, they expired into the public domain, to ensure the works could be built upon. This was considered better than the British system of the time, which was 28 years without need for renewal. In other words, the Founders of the US wanted copyrights to expire at least as frequently than they had under the system they were leaving. Shorter copyrights were considered better. A short confirmation of this information can be found at the Creative Commons Founders Copyright page.

Is there a Creative Commons equivalent for software licenses?

Yes, it's called the "Creative Commons". More information can be found at creativecommons.org

Seriously though, did you miss the popup on the Creative Commons licence generator that lets you specify content type? Did you miss the content type called "Interactive"? What did you think that applied to?

Whew, you're quick! It took me about 10 seconds to see that Creative Commons offers not one, but two software licenses. Namely, the GNU GPL and the GNU LGPL. The only thing that Creative Commons adds is a "human-readable summary of the Legal Code".