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

Interesting

[jimmyCarter]

It's interesting -- definitely a way to simplify the daunting task of picking a license. I recently began to roll my first SourceForge project and can tell you the license-selection step is very intimidating.

Then again, I don't have the GPL stitched on my pillowcase like some of you. ;)

Who will use this?

[areThoseMyFeet]

Although this seems like a fine idea in theory, I am having difficulty imagining many situations where people would use it, which would be useful to others.
It is not going to replace copyright for music or books (I realise these aren't mentioned, I'm just trying to think of some possible use - theirs are pretty crap and unlikely) for example - the industry wouldn't touch it for obvious reasons.
If it takes off at all, it would be for the benefit of amateurs only, but then, what's the point?

Re:sharealike = gpl?

[Burdell]

The ShareAlike License looks like it requires that any modifications be distributed under the ShareAlike license (and no other). The GPL only requires that the key provisions of the GPL be followed. If you want to distribute your derivative work under a different (but compatible) license, that is acceptable under the GPL but not under the ShareAlike License. Without reading the fine print, that requirement may actually make the ShareAlike license incompatible with the GPL (as it puts additional restrictions).

What about the rest of the world?

[jb_nizet]

OK, so this web site gives licenses for the US, in english.
Are the licenses applicable outside the US?
If so, wouldn't it be nice to provide the license text in other languages (at least the main ones: French, Spanish, Chinese, Japanese, etc.)?

JB.

Re:Slight problem here

[henben]

The (To be specific:...) was added after I submitted the comment! Seriously...

Whoever just updated the site, please confirm this - I fear for my Karma.

It's not all about code

[LetterJ]

A lot of posters seem to be oblivious to the fact that people want to share things other than code. Things like art, literature and music. The GPL, BSD and other software licenses are a shoehorn fit at best and blatantly inappropriate in most cases when applied to these domains of intellectual property. Go read the GPL and see how many of the paragraphs deal exclusively with software terminology. Those licenses deal in terms of "source code", "machine code", etc. That's pretty easy to interpret for software, but what's "source code" in art? In music? Is sheet music the real source or should you be providing a fully instrumented MIDI file to work with as "source"? These new types of licenses are more appropriate for things that aren't software. This isn't a replacement for your precious GPL. It's, instead, an appropriate parallel for non-software instances.

You Woefully Miss the Point

[FreeUser]

Re:Who will use this?

I will, for one, and many others already have.

Although this seems like a fine idea in theory, I am having difficulty imagining many situations where people would use it, which would be useful to others.

There is already a bunch of material licensed under their licenses, and numerous other efforts to achieve similar results under which a great deal of good music and prose is licensed. Clearly there are many others who are having little difficulty in finding these sorts of free licenses useful.

It is not going to replace copyright for music or books (I realise these aren't mentioned, I'm just trying to think of some possible use - theirs are pretty crap and unlikely) for example - the industry wouldn't touch it for obvious reasons.

It isn't "replacing copyright" (though drastic copyright reform eliminating the government monopoly entitlements it grants with a more balanced "sales tax as creator royalty" scheme would be highly desirable), it is creating a license that, similar to the BSD License, the FDL, and the GPL, will facilitate a growing commons of material all creative people can use and build upon.

Finally, who gives a fuck about the "industry" as such. Their purposes are already served, and have been so by a century of corrupt copyright legislation bought and paid for from our inexpensively purchased "representatives" in congress. The cultural squatters of New York, Nashville, and Hollywood, and the cartels they have formed, are the reason that the "vast cultural wasteland" of television and the lack of cultural depth in modern society have become so obvious, and such obvious truisms that they have become cliches.

These free licenses aren't intended to benefit the entrenched "industry" any more than the GPL is designed to Benefit the Sun Microsystems and Microsoft's of the world. It is intended to benefit ARTISTS and CREATIVE PEOPLE, not cultural squatters and an industry that has denigrated the art into a mere product of mass production, filtered down to the lowest common denominator.

If it takes off at all, it would be for the benefit of amateurs only, but then, what's the point?

First this is nonsense. One could have made the same inane (and in retrospect obviously incorrect) argument against the GPL, which has benefitted both amateurs (such as Linus Torvalds when he first began writing the Linux kernel) and professionals (such as IBM).

Likewise, the Creative Commons will empower amateurs (such as myself) and professionals. No, it won't empower Time Warner any more than the GPL empowers Microsoft, but it will empower Indy music and film makers (who are often professionals and not amateurs, though they often serve as a bridge in getting new and talented filmmakers noticed).

Second, every professional was at one time in their career an amateur. A great deal of amateur material is crap, but a great deal is also excellent. Having that material available as part of a commons, free to be distributed, improved upon, and incorporated into other, grander works is a very valuable thing to artists, to society, and to the health of our cultural heritage itself. No, it doesn't benefit Disney and Time-Warner, it benefits the tens of thousands of talented artists Disney, Time-Warner, and others of their ilk have traditionally trampled under their feet, and in addition it benefits the rest of us who enjoy and admire such works.

And that is very, very good thing, tripe and propoganda from the "industry" at its shills and astroturfers notwithstanding.