Creative Commons for Software?

rumint asks: "I am working on a software utility that I want to distribute freely. Unfortunately, there is a wide variety of nearly unintelligible software licenses (unless you are a lawyer). Of course there is the GPL, but I'm not sure it fits everyone's needs. Is there a Creative Commons equivalent for software licenses? If not, does some newly minted law school graduate want to put one together and contribute to humanity?"

Comments

ugh no more license please

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh, come on now. Here's all you need to ask yourself:

* Do you want to let people distribute your software any way they want, including with less flexible terms than you distribute it? Pick the BSD license.

* Do you want to let people distribute your software any way they want, as * long as they grant others at least the same rights you granted them? Pick the GPL.

That's it. Those are your two choices. These are well understood and are easy to read (the BSD is easy to read because it's short, and the GPL is easy to read because it was written to be easy to read, as well as legally sound). Everything else is just a waste of people's time.

You can also trademark the name of your program and add a note that says something like "you can use the GPL as long as you don't name your program FooBarProg2000(tm). Otherwise you can't redistribute at all." Adding simple exceptions to an existing license is a good way to customize them without having to write new ones from scratch.

What you DO NOT want to do is write YET ANOTHER half-assed free software license. The world is full of them, thanks. Every damn company (or rather, their lawyers) thinks they have to invent their own silly license. Stop that! Besides, a license is not something you just "throw together". It needs to be very carefully written to protect everybody's rights yet not violate the fundamental software freedoms we all know and love (like being able to *use* the software for any purpose).

What I'm saying is, if really need a license other than these two, you better have a DAMN GOOD REASON. And don't worry if the license "meet's people's needs". It's your software, not theirs. Pick the license that gives you the warmest most fuzzy happy feeling in your tummy (heh).

And ignore the pro/anti GPL zealots. To a vast majority of your users, the various free software licenses like BSD and GPL are indistinguishable, and indeed can be completely ignored unless they are *redistributing* the software.

Choose One

[benjamindees]

The reason there is no Creative Commons license for software is that there would need to be two, basically equivalent to the BSD license and the GPL. Because software can be distributed in both easily-modifiable and not-easily-modifiable forms, any software license must take special notice of this.

What's wrong with Creative Commons itself?

[Gherald]

There is no reason you cannot use an ordinary Creative Commons license for software. For instance, I was just using Python-IRC

But most people prefer either the BSD or GPL for software since they are both hugely popular and compatible in one direction (BSD code can be freely re-licensed under the GPL, and intermixed with already GPLed code). Although I suppose the same might be true of BSD --> CC, there is already a HUGE amount of GPL software out there that you may as well be compatible with if at all possible.

Re:What's wrong with Creative Commons itself?

[pokka]

Actually, there are some reasons you shouldn't just use Creative Commons for software. From the FAQ:

Can I use a creative commons license for software?

Creative Commons licenses are not intended to apply to software. They should not be used for software. We strongly encourage you to use one of the very good software licenses available today. The licenses made available by the Free Software Foundation or listed at the Open Source Initiative should be considered by you if you are licensing software or software documentation. Unlike our licenses -- which do not make mention of source or object code -- these existing licenses were designed specifically for use with software.

Adding exceptions

[cbr2702]

You can also trademark the name of your program and add a note that says something like "you can use the GPL as long as you don't name your program FooBarProg2000(tm). Otherwise you can't redistribute at all." Adding simple exceptions to an existing license is a good way to customize them without having to write new ones from scratch.

While you can add a note along with your code saying that FooBarProg2000 is your trademark, your exception is a bad idea. Imagine you distribute your software with the following note: "you can distribute this software under the GPL provided you meet criteria FOO, otherwise you have no distribution rights". Person A meets criteria FOO, and distributes your software under the GPL to person B. Person B is now free not to meet criteia FOO, as they recieved the software under the GPL. Adding exceptions like this needs to be done carefully.

Also note that if you do manage to phrase your exception well, people can't mix it with other GPL code, so it's not all that useful.

If you took one second to look at the CC site...

[charlie763]

Here's a link to a page on the GPL that you might understand http://creativecommons.org/licenses/GPL/2.0/ and this http://creativecommons.org/license/ will help you choose a license. Look at the lower left of the page for easily read non-CC licenses.