Creative Commons Launches Today

Luke Francl writes "On December 16, the Creative Commons is unveiling their commons licenses. Well, their website is up a little early Creative Commons provides an easy way for creators to give away some of their rights under copyright law without wading through hundreds of pages debating the merits of the GPL verus the OPL versus the FDL verus the public domain ad infinitum. By answering three simple questions, the Creative Commons web application selects an appropriate license for you. You can give it a try at the Choose a License page. They've also got a list of all the Creative Commons licenses." Peter Wayner has released his book Free For All under the license.

Comments

Re:sharealike = gpl?

[henben]

Well, the GPL covers situations that might arise with code but not with other types of content. e.g. the requirement that source code is made available, and is in the preferred form for making modifications.

They're similar in spirit, but the GPL is more specifically tailored to computer code.

Re:sharealike = gpl?

[Mr_Silver]

How is their ShareAlike License different from GPL?
ShareAlike license -- the one you get if you click just the "sharealike" option when selecting licenses.
And if it is not, what was the need to create another license with the same conditions?

Unlike the GNU GPL, Creative Commons licenses are not be designed for software, but rather for other kinds of creative works: websites, scholarship, music, film, photography, literature, courseware, etc.

There is a pretty good FAQ too.

Re:Slight problem here

[stubear]

Why do mocerators insist on modding up comments solely based on their contreversial nature? It took me all of two seconds to find this:

The electronic version is now covered by the Creative Common's license permitting non-commerical distribution of complete copies. (To be specific: Attribution-NoDerivs-NonCommercial License)

on the "Free for All" website. Come on. Not only was the parent an idiot, at least one moderator has propegated this bullshit.

Re:-1 Offtopic

[morgajel]

MS is the FIRST Office suite vendor to store documents as XML
or really? besides, microsoft has the OPTION (read: not it's primary, default format)

openoffice has been xml for quite a while now, and I'm sure there are others as well.

oh yeah, why do you have me listed as a foe? hope I'm not raining on your parade.
sorry man, my bad.

Re:Who will use this?

[signer]

Let's look at an example: You're an independent musician, trying to build a following. You play gigs and even make a little money. You are not an "amateur" but you are not signed with a major label, either. You release a CD, but you want to make one track available for publicity purposes, such as use by net radio stations. You release that track under whichever license you prefer (for example, the "attribute it to me" license) and make it available. Now you've made it clear that people who might want to publicize your work are allowed to post this track wherever they want, as long as your name is attached. Hopefully, if it's a good track, your name will get out (via the "attribute it to me" license) and your following will increase. You don't need to make special arrangements with each person who wants to play your song.

Basically, you just increased your potential sales via word-of-mouth exponentially, without anyone involved having to worry about whether or not they're breaking the law or having to contact you for explicit permission. This isn't about "the industry"; they've already designed their business models around the traditional approach to copyright. This is for artists.

Ibiblio.org-Creative Commons sites

[chimprawk]

Ibiblio.org has put together a index of sites that use the Creative Commons licenses.

You can check it out by going to the home page http://www.ibiblio.org

You might find it interesting to see the licenses in action.