Slashdot Mirror
Creative Commons Includes GPL And LGPL Metadata
TrentC writes "I was looking at the Creative Commons site this weekend, and was surprised to find, on their license generation page, entries (translated into Portuguese) in a sidebar for the GNU General Public License and GNU Lesser General Public License, including RDF blocks.
Since CC is pushing for projects that can generate, validate, display and search for CC license metadata, how cool would it be to be able to do a Google search for GPL-licensed material, or a P2P network for MP3s released under the CC Attribution-ShareAlike license? As an example, Nathan Yergler has released mozCC, a plugin for Mozilla and Firebird that allows you to view CC license information embedded in a webpage, and provides icons on the status bar displaying the CC license options."
Select the "must be licenced under CC" box, and then search for music and other stuff you can download guilt-free.
Not sure there would be many results to your search though, but it might catch on.
Homme petit d'homme petit, s'attend, n'avale
Seems like the Moz plugin is what would be really powerful. Then the license data could be slammed into a sidebar for anyone who really needs it, and the icon would profide enough information for Joe FreeData.
I can't even begin to think about what a feed showing all (L)GPL and FDL stuff would look like. Fatter than the Freshmeat feed, I would suppose.
The previous sig has been removed due to
Yes, does anyone know of a search engine where you can search for GPL based software?
For some odd reason GPL software is always of 'better quality'.
That GNU-Darwin people decides not to link to proprietary libraries is, of course, a result of them using the GNU Public License so extensively and now because of that decision the primary Darwin development platform is no longer supported in this project!
This makes me shake my head and wonder what the fuck? This project is not only shooting itself in the foot by choosing a platform not fully supported by the OS, but is also screwing over the real meat of Darwin's userbase: PowerPC owners. This move is akin to opening a car garage (in America) whose mechanics are all experienced in servicing American cars, and then changing policy months later, stating that the garage will only work on foreign models.
Where is the fucking logic?
Seriously, am I the only one who is wondering who the Hell is in charge at that project? Kool-Aid Man? This move makes so little sense I can't tell if the people at GNU-Darwin are really that stupid, or if I am waking up in alternate realities every damn morning. I almost kind of hope for the latter.
This is the GPL in action, Mac faithful. Get down on your knees and kiss Apple's butt for choosing the BSD license.
I would love a search engine on which I could search for Open Source Software and CC media, all with one click. However, and perhaps someone more informed than I can explain this, I was under the impression that the GPL was distinct from the CC because, under CC work, any user can use it for any reason and reproduce it without notice, and can then sell it. However, under the GPL, all contributions made under the GPL must be re-released and made available to the public with the GPL notice. In CC, you don't have to worry about license issues.
Anyone able to compare and contrast the two?
*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*
"We are Linux. Resistance is measured in Ohms."
Our biggest problem is that we, as a society, have confused well marketed with "good." There's thousands of great musicians running around that are not well known. What main stream America wants is the marketed music. Well, guess what? marketing machines are about making money. Imagine who cool it would be if all the effort thrown into pirating the marketed stuff went into creating an underground force for marketing independent music? The cool thing about the creative commons license is that it is a start in making such an underground force.
- - - - - - -
World66, the largest open content travel site
CC RDF metadata can include fields for name of author, name of copyright holder, and the name of the work. The Creative Commons page on embedding license information in non-web files covers how validating the license would work.
You embed a link to a web page into the license data; the web page confirms the embedded license data. If the license link is not there, or the license data at the webpage and the embedded license data don't match, then it does not validate; a good agent would notify you of this, and perhaps even not let you download the non-validating files.
Yes, you could put up a fraudulent site with fraudulent license data. But that's like saying "selling used cars isn't practical, because I could steal a car and forge the registration." There's a reason fraud is a crime...
A community that wants to encourage distribution of legitimate works would not let a fraudulent site stay up for long once discovered, which would break the validation chain. And that is the community this system is designed to serve.
Jay (=
OK, not all of them are expressed as a formal law, and many are worse than the USAsian one, but it should be easy to find one that has everything that someone raised in western civilization would expect (democracy, free speech, innocent until proven guilty, no death penalty, basic human rights granted, ...) and with a sane balance of rights between the rights of a creator and the interests of the general public.
Programming can be fun again. Film at 11.
I've been saying for a long time scientific work (Physics videos, math tutor programs, etc) should be released unto p2p.
Discovery or whomever (PBS, it is our content America!) should donate third run shows that can be downloaded and viewed at home or school.
Doesn't need to be explained more than that. Give the shows a month to be aired on TV and then the History Channel hands them over to the net. If they release it free as in beer we will respect their trademarks.
Like I said, I've suggested it before and have written a paper on it and posted it here before (under this Login I believe).
Get your Unix fortune now!
especially manuals for commercial products. Manuals are full of information and are in some ways "ads" for a company's products. Chiral Software's manual for its WAP server software is licensed under the Creative Commons system.