Slashdot Mirror

People usually don't sign up for Open Source or Free Software. They just do stuff, put it out there and let other people use it. To quote one Mr. Torvalds, real men just upload their important stuff on ftp, and let the rest of the world mirror it.

I have customer service skills godddammnit! Anyway, I'd hope to be able to help. Like I said, where do I sign up? Is it with Canonical, or is there a generic "Linux" marketing effort someplace?

Have you thought about starting a blog?

How about taking an active part in one or more major distribution's forum?

• http://fedoraforum.org/
• http://forums.opensuse.org/
• http://ubuntuforums.org/
• http://forums.gentoo.org/

Just publishing (in a reusable format under a nice CC License)

• market research
• technical business direction
• explainations of what is possible to the business types
• what you (as a marketing professional) learn from techies

If your work is of high quality, it would make an impact.

Whoever the tech folks who work for Obama understand the need for having a FOSS option. Change.gov is licensed under creative commons, so somebody got the memo that user freedom, the web as a commons and all that is a good thing. The Silverlight thing is probably being viewed by the Obama team as "just another option," but they have made a good faith effort to cater to the (for lack of a better catchall term) FOSS community--at least better than any previous USA presidential administration.

That said, I notice that CC-SA v3.0 (creative commons share alike 3.0) is considered DFSG-Free. Does that mean its also now compatible with the GPL?

Two licenses are "compatible" when works under these licenses can be combined into a larger work that may be distributed to the public. Just because a free software license meets the Debian guidelines doesn't make it compatible with the GNU General Public License. For instance, the old BSD license is a free software license but not compatible with the GPL.

I skimmed it, but didn't see anywhere where the author could request a -change- in attribution.

Did you skim the Commons Deed (no legal force) or the actual license? Please search for the words "upon notice from any Licensor" in the license.

A good first step might be to get a large Creative Commons texture repository that all games can share from.

I see one major problem with all Creative Commons licenses. Ordinarily, they require all downstream users of a given work to credit the work's author ("attribution"). But at any time, the author can change the requirement from crediting the author to not crediting the author. From the Creative Commons Attribution license:

If You create a Collection, upon notice from any Licensor You must, to the extent practicable, remove from the Collection any credit as required by Section 4(b), as requested. If You create an Adaptation, upon notice from any Licensor You must, to the extent practicable, remove from the Adaptation any credit as required by Section 4(b), as requested.

This requirement for removal of attribution is incompatible with all GNU licenses, including the GPL that covers the game code and the GFDL that covers the game's manual. All this is despite that Creative Commons recommends GNU licenses for software and provides Commons Deed summaries for them, like this one for GPL v2 or later.

A good first step might be to get a large Creative Commons texture repository that all games can share from.

I see one major problem with all Creative Commons licenses. Ordinarily, they require all downstream users of a given work to credit the work's author ("attribution"). But at any time, the author can change the requirement from crediting the author to not crediting the author. From the Creative Commons Attribution license:

If You create a Collection, upon notice from any Licensor You must, to the extent practicable, remove from the Collection any credit as required by Section 4(b), as requested. If You create an Adaptation, upon notice from any Licensor You must, to the extent practicable, remove from the Adaptation any credit as required by Section 4(b), as requested.

This requirement for removal of attribution is incompatible with all GNU licenses, including the GPL that covers the game code and the GFDL that covers the game's manual. All this is despite that Creative Commons recommends GNU licenses for software and provides Commons Deed summaries for them, like this one for GPL v2 or later.

Thank you very much.

Creative Commons publishes many licenses which are very different. Therefore, to say that a work âoeuses a Creative Commons licenseâ is to leave the principal questions about the work's licensing unanswered. When you see such a statement in a work, please ask the author to highlight the substance of the license choices. And if someone proposes to âoeuse a Creative Commons licenseâ for a certain work, it is vital to ask immediately, âoeWhich one?â

http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/license-list.html#which-cc

I actually go further than these folks, I say "don't use any CC licence".

Copyright 2008 apathy maybe
You are free to use and modify this work, for any purpose, in any medium with the following condition:
This entire licence text is retained and applies to any copy and/or modification.

Simple, to the point, and does the job. Isn't wrapped in legalise, won't confuse anyone and applies no matter where in the world you are.

As I've said before, Creative Commons encourages people not to understand what they are doing. It provides everyone with a simplistic "non-legal" text. For example, even when I just "selected" a licence, it directed me to http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/ which doesn't contain the full text. If I just use that, I don't know what "rights" I'm giving up! It is only when I go to http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/legalcode that I find this great bit of text... (emphasis added):

Except as otherwise agreed in writing by the Licensor or as may be otherwise permitted by applicable law, if You Reproduce, Distribute or Publicly Perform the Work either by itself or as part of any Adaptations or Collections, You must not distort, mutilate, modify or take other derogatory action in relation to the Work which would be prejudicial to the Original Author's honor or reputation. Licensor agrees that in those jurisdictions (e.g. Japan), in which any exercise of the right granted in Section 3(b) of this License (the right to make Adaptations) would be deemed to be a distortion, mutilation, modification or other derogatory action prejudicial to the Original Author's honor and reputation, the Licensor will waive or not assert, as appropriate, this Section, to the fullest extent permitted by the applicable national law, to enable You to reasonably exercise Your right under Section 3(b) of this License (right to make Adaptations) but not otherwise.

Not only is it hard to read (and legal texts don't have to be hard to read), it is putting restrictions upon anyone using the work that I find unacceptable.

Fuck off with "Creative Commons" shit.

(The licence that the book is published under is http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/ which has the same clause.)

----

On PDF: Sumatra, FLOSS PDF reading software for MS Windows.

Thank you very much.

Creative Commons publishes many licenses which are very different. Therefore, to say that a work âoeuses a Creative Commons licenseâ is to leave the principal questions about the work's licensing unanswered. When you see such a statement in a work, please ask the author to highlight the substance of the license choices. And if someone proposes to âoeuse a Creative Commons licenseâ for a certain work, it is vital to ask immediately, âoeWhich one?â

http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/license-list.html#which-cc

I actually go further than these folks, I say "don't use any CC licence".

Copyright 2008 apathy maybe
You are free to use and modify this work, for any purpose, in any medium with the following condition:
This entire licence text is retained and applies to any copy and/or modification.

Simple, to the point, and does the job. Isn't wrapped in legalise, won't confuse anyone and applies no matter where in the world you are.

As I've said before, Creative Commons encourages people not to understand what they are doing. It provides everyone with a simplistic "non-legal" text. For example, even when I just "selected" a licence, it directed me to http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/ which doesn't contain the full text. If I just use that, I don't know what "rights" I'm giving up! It is only when I go to http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/legalcode that I find this great bit of text... (emphasis added):

Except as otherwise agreed in writing by the Licensor or as may be otherwise permitted by applicable law, if You Reproduce, Distribute or Publicly Perform the Work either by itself or as part of any Adaptations or Collections, You must not distort, mutilate, modify or take other derogatory action in relation to the Work which would be prejudicial to the Original Author's honor or reputation. Licensor agrees that in those jurisdictions (e.g. Japan), in which any exercise of the right granted in Section 3(b) of this License (the right to make Adaptations) would be deemed to be a distortion, mutilation, modification or other derogatory action prejudicial to the Original Author's honor and reputation, the Licensor will waive or not assert, as appropriate, this Section, to the fullest extent permitted by the applicable national law, to enable You to reasonably exercise Your right under Section 3(b) of this License (right to make Adaptations) but not otherwise.

Not only is it hard to read (and legal texts don't have to be hard to read), it is putting restrictions upon anyone using the work that I find unacceptable.

Fuck off with "Creative Commons" shit.

(The licence that the book is published under is http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/ which has the same clause.)

----

On PDF: Sumatra, FLOSS PDF reading software for MS Windows.

Thank you very much.

Creative Commons publishes many licenses which are very different. Therefore, to say that a work âoeuses a Creative Commons licenseâ is to leave the principal questions about the work's licensing unanswered. When you see such a statement in a work, please ask the author to highlight the substance of the license choices. And if someone proposes to âoeuse a Creative Commons licenseâ for a certain work, it is vital to ask immediately, âoeWhich one?â

http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/license-list.html#which-cc

I actually go further than these folks, I say "don't use any CC licence".

Copyright 2008 apathy maybe
You are free to use and modify this work, for any purpose, in any medium with the following condition:
This entire licence text is retained and applies to any copy and/or modification.

Simple, to the point, and does the job. Isn't wrapped in legalise, won't confuse anyone and applies no matter where in the world you are.

As I've said before, Creative Commons encourages people not to understand what they are doing. It provides everyone with a simplistic "non-legal" text. For example, even when I just "selected" a licence, it directed me to http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/ which doesn't contain the full text. If I just use that, I don't know what "rights" I'm giving up! It is only when I go to http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/legalcode that I find this great bit of text... (emphasis added):

Except as otherwise agreed in writing by the Licensor or as may be otherwise permitted by applicable law, if You Reproduce, Distribute or Publicly Perform the Work either by itself or as part of any Adaptations or Collections, You must not distort, mutilate, modify or take other derogatory action in relation to the Work which would be prejudicial to the Original Author's honor or reputation. Licensor agrees that in those jurisdictions (e.g. Japan), in which any exercise of the right granted in Section 3(b) of this License (the right to make Adaptations) would be deemed to be a distortion, mutilation, modification or other derogatory action prejudicial to the Original Author's honor and reputation, the Licensor will waive or not assert, as appropriate, this Section, to the fullest extent permitted by the applicable national law, to enable You to reasonably exercise Your right under Section 3(b) of this License (right to make Adaptations) but not otherwise.

Not only is it hard to read (and legal texts don't have to be hard to read), it is putting restrictions upon anyone using the work that I find unacceptable.

Fuck off with "Creative Commons" shit.

(The licence that the book is published under is http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/ which has the same clause.)

----

On PDF: Sumatra, FLOSS PDF reading software for MS Windows.

I would like to see a new OSS license that prevents forking, but allows me to read the source code, submit patches upstream, and recompile.

*poof* Your wish is granted. Attribution-No Derivative Works 3.0 United States

Congratz, now go promote it. Oh, one little thing. Forking is a strongly protected freedom, principle of FSF, and the Free Culture movement... so not sure it would really take off. Open standards and standards bodies groups , IMHO are much stronger and more influential in the FOSS world. Can you name even one standards body that Microsoft even gives a flying F*** about, let alone follow aside from bare necessity to allow their OS to work on certain hardware?

A standard that can't be changed completely defeats its own purpose. It is why Communism works on paper and not in reality; you can't find the most efficient and effective way to do something unless you let people try. People will adapt, and the world will be a better place for it. Things fork, merge, and die all the time, it is a principle of development and evolution. I see a good Godwin in here about trying to perfect things one way, but I'll skip the obvious. How many other ways are there to explain this?

That it's OK to share if you provide attribution and share under the same terms as the liecnse.

Under all Creative Commons licenses, an upstream copyright owner can require you to remove his name from all further copies of the work. For example, see CC-by-sa 3.0 under "remove from the Adaptation any credit". That requirement makes CC licenses incompatible[1] with other licenses that require that copyright notices be preserved. Even not considering compatibility, it can create a logistical nightmare.

Two licenses are "compatible" iff they allow works under those licenses to be combined into a larger work and distributed to the public.

It occurred to me that one could use Creative Commons in conjunction with XMP (metadata tagging) to construct a peer-to-peer network for easier sharing of legitimate files combined with attribution.

More information about XMP and CC:-
http://wiki.creativecommons.org/XMP

You could check the Stanford Engineering Everywhere program's resources. They released some great beginner level programming courses under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported license. Those could be adapted for teaching the subject to students, and the content used for instructional material.

There is an interesting, and as far as I'm aware still open, question of whether some legal systems actually have a provision for permanently and irrevocably contributing works that fall under copyright to the public domain.

Donating to the public domain was a gray area in copyright law last time I looked into it. From what I remember, the main problem stems from a Berne copyright treaty that makes it difficult if not impossible for the author to abandon the "ideal"/moral rights to his work. The US only pays lip service to this treaty, so it should not cause problems for public domain dedication in the US of A. Creative Commons and Lessig looked into this, afair. A google might show up something on the topic from them. Anyway, the CC Public Domain dedication license has a note to the effect that it isn't necessarily valid outside the US.

Similar concerns apply to open source licences.

Depends on the particular license. GPL requires consideration, so I don't see what the particular problem might be there. Same, afaik, with other foss licenses that require some sort of reprosity in return for giving others the right to modify/redistribute.

Provided the authors state what attribution they require (in the case in point: "requiring any published article that uses results of the software to cite our paper"), the line: "You must attribute the work in the manner specified by the author or licensor." seems to be cover such a requirement.

But if you read the text of the license, you find that the attribution requirement kicks in only if the modified work is a Collective Work or a Derivative Work of the covered work. If a program doesn't copy parts of itself into the output, then its output is not a Derivative Work of the program, as the FAQ for another license explains.

I don't know. This one: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.5/ seems to be OSI approved. Provided the authors state what attribution they require (in the case in point: "requiring any published article that uses results of the software to cite our paper"), the line: "You must attribute the work in the manner specified by the author or licensor." seems to be cover such a requirement.

Licenses can and should restrict use of source code.

Results are obtained by using the software, not by using the source code. A source code license cannot restrict use of the compiled software, because it is out of the scope of copyright law.

There is no law against using source code you were able to download and doing what you like with the results. You don't have to accept a software license of any kind to be able to do what you want with the results.

Your end user has to accept and follow a software license to modify and distribute a copyright work, or to perform other acts restricted by copyright law.

The data in a table of results is not a copyright work; they're just the facts of that run of a computer program.

To legally restrict use of results: you require instead a EULA or a contract. Which also makes the software not considered 'Open'

It is better to use a license that requires maintaining copyright disclaimers for distributions of the source code, for example, GPLv2 (since GPLv3 is considered bad).

Or say the Open Software License

Or if you wish to not require source code distribution in derivative works: MIT License, Academic Free License, or a Creative Commons Attribution license.

Creative Commons - Attribution

http://wiki.creativecommons.org/Category:Casestudy

Go compete everyone, I've got 3CDs worth of 90's Electronic Noise on legal torrents, let's just cut out the greedy *AA-holes.

First, there is an easy way to renounce your copyright and place a work in the public domain. You simply declare that that work is in the public domain; e.g., by a statement saying "This work is in the public domain."

I can't cite anything in particular on the web, but according to Lawrence Lessig, it's not actually that easy. I attended a talk he gave, and I believe he said something along the lines of a physical conveyance has to occur to place something into the public domain when it would normally be still covered by copyright.

Secondly, there's no such thing as a "public domain license."

I think you misunderstand. The PD license mentioned by GP was not that you have to license something to place it into the public domain. Rather, it was an identification of the Creative Commons public domain dedication. If I understand correctly (we didn't cover public domain transference in my IP law class last year), this dedication is necessary to count as the "conveyance" to make something PD that wouldn't normally be PD.

I think the existence of the CC PD dedication is prima facie evidence that it's not as easy as you claim to place something into the PD.

Why not just upload the torrent and get your friends to download it the same way. With the way bit torrent works, all your friends (or anyone else for that matter) will become seeders in no time if they just stay connected. Also, if you post the torrent here, I am sure there are a fair number of /.ers willing to seed it. Also, if by any stretch of the imagination you don't know about it already, Pick out the CC License of your choice and at the end there are many sites listed that will host CC Licensed work for free, including the internet archive. Found some interesting info at Zimibo.com too.

No, "rediculous" is clearly a derivative work of "ridiculous", and would violate the "no derivative works" clause of Webster's copyright:


Ridiculous by Webster's Dictionary is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0 United States License.

Prepare to be boarded.

No, "rediculous" is clearly a derivative work of "ridiculous", and would violate the "no derivative works" clause of Webster's copyright:


Ridiculous by Webster's Dictionary is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0 United States License.

Prepare to be boarded.

From the Attribution-No Derivative Works 3.0 license page:

Your fair use and other rights are in no way affected by the above.

I'd take that to mean that transcoding to place on YouTube is explicitly allowed. In fact, reading the actual license terms, it appears that "webcasting" is explicitly allowed provided the entire clip is included, so I'd take that to mean that transcoding is OK.

The missing copyright notice and lack of link to the license, on the other hand, would seem to be in violation...

(Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer, and as with all legal advice on Slashdot, this is just mindless speculation by someone who's never taken a law class. Well, except for that one law class I did take, but I can't remember what it was about, so I guess it doesn't count.)

Will this do?

You're welcome.

I'd like to hear about a business model whereby the artists produce the music and put it out on the Internet for free.

Music artists make a lot more money out of shows than from selling CDs. Nowadays you can find top artists distributing free CDs, providing full albums under Creative Commons license, and even refusing to record new albums since 1990. And you can be sure these groups are still making huge profits from their shows, thank you very much!

This is not even something new. Here in Brazil, music artists have been complaining for decades that record labels quite often pay them peanuts by "cheating" on sale numbers or simply ignoring contract agreements -- even the big labels such as EMI. But they continued recording CDs anyway, simply because the sustained publicity help promote their live shows, which is the part that really matters.

There is no revenue in recorded music anymore. I know I'm not buying any, and nobody I know is buying any.

Even before the time of MP3s and pirated CDs, everybody I know used to spend even more money buying show tickets than vinyls. From what I can tell, live shows became an even larger business now than decades ago.

I think the "business" of music is pretty much over.

For record labels, obviously. But for artists? Not at all!

I'm not very well informed about licencing, which is one of the reasons I'm using pre-written ones in the first place. But I thought the CC licences were more for traditional copyright (writing, images etc) than code.

Yes, but I would argue that there's not much difference between a program and anything else copyrightable. Code : program :: notes and lyrics : song :: sentences : books, for example. Even so, the CC FAQ does discourage it, though I didn't know that when I wrote my original post.

-Does it require than source is shared as well, or just that the binaries are freely provided?

It isn't specified, which is why CC apparently discourages its use. I still think it could be done through, say, licensing the source code (as a document unto itself) with a Share Alike license.

Is there really a distinction between source code and a binary blob, though? Source can be compiled into the blob, and a blob can be reverse-compiled into (a form of) the source. Any source could (theoretically) be interpreted instead of compiled, generating the same functionality. They're basically the same thing in different languages, like a book in English and French. The only real distinction I would personally make is to call source code the human-readable documentation of how the blob operates in such a structured format that a compiler could recreate the blob.

That is, of course, my personal opinion. IANAL in any way, shape, or form.

-Has this been tested in court?

Yes. Granted it was a Dutch case. Though if other such licenses are enforceable, I can't imagine why it would be any less binding.

How about a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike license?

Not open Source folks... at least not like the open source according to the OSD.

And Creative Commons agrees, as indicated by how the open-source-style licenses have a green bar at the top of their pages, while the less permissive oneshave a yellow bar. Nonetheless, it's quite a progressive thing to do, so good for Radiohead.

Not open Source folks... at least not like the open source according to the OSD.

And Creative Commons agrees, as indicated by how the open-source-style licenses have a green bar at the top of their pages, while the less permissive oneshave a yellow bar. Nonetheless, it's quite a progressive thing to do, so good for Radiohead.

http://creativecommons.org/weblog/entry/8095

http://wiki.creativecommons.org/Nine_Inch_Nails_The_Slip

http://creativecommons.org/weblog/entry/8095

http://wiki.creativecommons.org/Nine_Inch_Nails_The_Slip

Now wait a minute. LegalTorrents has been around for years. I first read about it in Wired Magazine when they included a CD filled with free, CC-licensed music as an insert in each copy. The CD had a link to the LegalTorrents site. It was also discussed extensively in the accompanying article. That was in the November 2004 issue, almost four years ago. See http://creativecommons.org/wired

Another good place to check for legally redistributable works is The Internet Archive, one of the most important sites on the Internet.

They host a lot of things across a wide spectrum of interests. They are the place hosting the digital archives for organizations that frequently publish new work (such as news programs and audio labels). Big files are okay there as well: You might be interested in a copy of the DVDs for "Big Buck Bunny" (most of the material on the DVDs are licensed CC-BY 3.0), The Story of Stuff (my copy of this came with a signed note that said I should "Feel free to copy and share it freely for any non-commercial use".

My album Geometric Visions: The Rough Draft is minimalist instrumental piano, all my own original compositions.

There are direct HTTP downloads in MP3 and Ogg Vorbis, and torrents in a variety of format, including FLAC - the Free Lossless Audio Codec.

Also, you may request a free CD. It comes with an attractive 4-page case insert, as well as a nice full-color label printed on the CD itself.

The case insert includes my short essay Why Free Music? as well as the history of my Baldwin Howard piano, which my grandfather bought in the 1940s from a door-to-door piano salesman.

You can also download the sheet music for two of my songs from my site, with the others to follow hopefully soon. US Letter and A4 PDFs are provided, as well as Lilypond source code and MIDI files generated from the scores - you could use the MIDI in a sequencing program like RoseGarden or GarageBand to remix your own versions - I invite you to do so, provided you ShareAlike!

Finally, while this CD is burned, I'm composing new material for a new CD that I hope to release in the spring. That will be glass-master pressed, and again they will be given away free.

And yes, I'm absolutely serious that I'd like my free CD offer to be Slashdotted!

Or music published by the author under a Creative Commons licence. Or my own compositions played by myself. Or folks songs performed by myself without reference to sheet music.

All true, but all sufficiently esoteric in the real world as to be safely ignoreable for 99.9% of businesses that want background music for whatever reason.

So you'd either have to play a record which is out of copyright (good luck finding such an old record and hooking up a suitable record player to a modern amp - few modern decks will play at 78RPM) or find 100 year old sheet of music and pay a performer to play that alone.

In other words, there are exceptions but they're sufficiently esoteric that it's vanishingly unlikely that anyone will take advantage of them.

Or music published by the author under a Creative Commons licence. Or my own compositions played by myself. Or folks songs performed by myself without reference to sheet music.

Creative Commons

I'm pretty sure Cliff Richard trotted out the old argument that artists need the income from their old stuff to survive. I imagine this to be expressed much like 'Allo 'Allo's Colonel Von Strohm, eyes bulging, red in the face, squealing, "That's my pension!"

The fact is that allowing artists to get rich while raking in profits from old creations is the opposite of what copyright was designed to do.

Personally I like the terms that Founders' Copyright allows, and don't see the need for anything longer.

Seriously, there should be a word limit on the amount of legalese you can agree to in a single action, or for a single service.

Bonus if we can make it legally required that every contract have a human-readable summary, similar to the Creative Commons ones. Here's their summary of the GPLv2.

Obviously you've never heard about Creative commons, an option to giving it or hide it. Take a look. http://creativecommons.org/

I will be happy to pay less for the most recent O'Reilly of the most recent fashionable programming language with the condition that my license to read it will expire in 4 years.

This might be a poor example; O'Reilly uses the Founders' Copyright system.

Thanks, that's about my thoughts on it as well. There's a Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication available, but I have no idea if it has any legal basis.

Also, there's the thought that I might want to re-claim rights for Good as well as Evil: for example, if Evil Megacorp swiped the work and tried to pass it of as their own (and to assert rights over it). For that reason, I just use CC Attribution now, rather than trying to fight the Man.

I admit, I was one of the torrent downloaders. I am a huge NIN fan, and when I read about the new album, I immediately went to the site to get it. Apparently several thousand other people did the same thing, because the download server was basically unavailable. So, I purchased the $10 double-album (which comes with the full 36'track download), and got the album via bittorrent while I waited for nin.com servers to become available.

I'd also like to point out that since the album is licensed under a Creative Commons license that explicitly gives you the right to "copy, distribute, display, and perform the work" (for non-commercial purposes), I can't really see how getting the album via a torrent could be considered 'wrong'.

Enjoy "stealing" it :) It is licensed as BY-NC-SA. You just can't make money off of it. See the faq for my source.

Actually, according to the FAQ: "Ghosts I-IV is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial Share Alike license." Legally speaking, anyone who downloads the $5 songs can freely distribute them in any manner they want, so long as tit is attributed and non-commercial.

Don't forget The WIRED CD compilation that was bundled with the november 2004 issue of Wired Magazine, and featured somewhat high profile artists such as Beastie Boys, Danger Mouse, Chuck D, etc... Three tracks were released under the Noncommercial Sampling Plus Creative Commons license, the rest under the Sampling Plus license. For me, that was the real start of that trend, although it took quite some time to catch on.

Yes, as per the Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike license the entire album is under. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/2.0/

Nine Inch Nails: Ghosts I (2008)

This torrent is an official upload from Nine Inch Nails.

We're very proud to present a new collection of instrumental music, Ghosts I-IV. Almost two hours of music recorded over an intense ten week period last fall, Ghosts I-IV sprawls Nine Inch Nails across a variety of new terrain.

Now that we're no longer constrained by a record label, we've decided to personally upload Ghosts I, the first of the four volumes, to various torrent sites, because we believe BitTorrent is a revolutionary digital distribution method, and we believe in finding ways to utilize new technologies instead of fighting them.

We encourage you to share the music of Ghosts I with your friends, post it on your website, play it on your podcast, use it for video projects, etc. It's licensed for all non-commercial use under Creative Commons.

We've also made a 40 page PDF book to accompany the album. If you'd like to download it for free, visit http://ghosts.nin.com/main/pdf

Ghosts I is the first part of the 36 track collection Ghosts I-IV. Undoubtedly you'll be able to find the complete collection on the same torrent network you found this file, but if you're interested in the release, we encourage you to check it out at ghosts.nin.com, where the complete Ghosts I-IV is available directly from us in a variety of DRM-free digital formats, including FLAC lossless, for only $5. You can also order it on CD, or as a deluxe package with multitrack audio files, high definition audio on Blu-ray disc, and a large hard-bound book.

We genuinely appreciate your support, and hope you enjoy the new music. Thanks for listening.

http://ghosts.nin.com/

by-nc-sa is right in the Ghosts FAQ
- give credit
- can't be used commercially
- derivative works must follow the same license