Slashdot Mirror
Creative Commons Add-In for Office Released
Ctrl+Alt+De1337 writes "Creative Commons has announced the release of an add-in to Microsoft Office that allows the easy addition of a CC license to files created with Word, PowerPoint, or Excel. It was co-developed by Microsoft and Creative Commons and only works in Office XP and Office 2003. It can be downloaded from Microsoft's download center after a validation check, and CNet has a screenshot available of the tool."
Why would you want a "Creative Commons tool" for Office? Wouldn't it just be easier to add a page after the title page, like the copyright page, but instead explaining the license of the document? Why do you need a program to do it for you?
What would be far more useful would be a way to tag Creative Commons documents in web pages, and then if some search engine (Google? please?) would explicitly label Creative Commons results as such, and encourage people to listen to, view, combine, mash up (shudder), and otherwise use them.
ttuttle is a rankmaniac
There is something very wrong with our copyright system when people have to attach a licence to all media they create in order for others to use it... Perhaps I should start wearing a badge that reads "Your eyes and ears have permission to consume my copyright material (e.g. My voice, and face."
... ?
Why isn't media created free/public domain unless its creator wants it protected?
God forbid that Microsoft should encourage anyone to use their own product or anything. Such a shame that no one is able to write CC-covered material with any other product anymore, thanks to the exclusive arrangement that CC no doubt made with Microsoft.
Done with slashdot, done with nerds, getting a life.
What's this "after validation" business? Doesn't this seem slightly hypocritical when compared to Creative Commons? The xml in the document has 'MICROSOFT" all over the place, so it's not like you can say you didn't make it in an office product.
Quoting from the M$ download site: It seems to me that that is the biggest load of lies I've ever heard. It's nearly as missleading as the healthy McDonald's trash. "Microsoft enables users around the world to exercise their creative freedom" Creative freedom?, Microsoft? I guess those terms don't really cope. I think that before releasing such a tool they should try applying some creative freedom themselves.
What's the point of posting on a website not under your control?
I don't think creative commons is a good thing because only some of its licenses have full freedom. Microsoft has probably released some free software too, but that doesn't mean we should promote Microsoft as free software.
On the other hand, one point with (some of) the CC licenses is continued editing; although another point is to maintain the distinction against public domain with "full edit/no attribution" rights. That is, a PDF version might not technically hinder you from integrating a CC work into your own document, but if you use MS Office (or even OO.org), a MS Office document might mean an easier way to do it. This means that we can't say that distribution in ONLY a highly presentation-centric format like PDF would be a good thing, despite it being open.
Lots of people use MS Office and won't convert to anything else if this "licensing wizard" download was missing. It might encourage a few to license works in a clear and less restrictive manner. I see nothing wrong in that.
"Smart tags" were also introduced in Office XP, the most popular one being the one where you choose the paste settings after you've seen the results of pasting with default settings, but it wouldn't make even less sense to package this functionality as a tag.
CNet has a screenshot available of the tool.
That screenshot looks nothing like Ballmer!
Does not compute.
Hive mind stack overflow at 0xEE00FF33
Core dumped.
Cats living with dogs!
Seriously, what am I to make of this?
CC muddy themselves by association with the Devil.
M$ send confusing message about IP
Isn't this like asking Satan the story of Jesus or something?
What good is an `open' license if the format in which it's published is closed and restrictive?
Good. Cheap. Fast. Pick Two.
I am sure that Microsoft would want to know about this hidden feature you are using!
Can anyone explain how this is NOT a thinly-veiled a ruse to encourage use of Microsoft's proprietary file formats for potentially important, widely distributed documents?
I like how you started out with an assumption then expect other people to verify that assumption for you. Oh shit I mean.... rawr M$ is teh evil rofl mao
Chicken fried butter sticks? Do
Because you're licensing the content not the format it's presented in. People generally copyright the text on a website or inside a book, not that the book was printed on white paper using a serif font or that your website is running on Apache or IIS.
They develop a plugin to read ODF files. Thats kind of what I thought this was - by way of gross misunderstanding - and i was about to jump for joy. Then maybe people wont have to keep two versions of a document depending on who they are sending it to.
I'll just use my special getting high powers one more time...
What if I improperly tag a document with a Creative Commons license? For example, say I am an employee in a large office. Lets make it a government office just for spice. I create some document of some importance to my boss. I have done it as a work for hire. I have done it in a government office, but it is not intended for publication. Somehow, I manage to tag this document with a CC license. I send it around for review, and the information in it is rolled up into a document that IS intended for publication. It wasn't my document to license out, but the license is now bundled up in there. What, if anything, happens next?
Behold, this dreamer cometh. Come now, and let us slay him... and we shall see what will become of his dreams.
It is there to get you used to the idea of DRM. It is actually part of the DRM system integrated in Office. Sooner or later, users will be presented with a far more complex DRM tool to choose an appropriate license and protection scheme. Standard users are protective about their ideas, thoughts and works. If they are asked by Office, if they want to share it with the rest of the world or put a restrictive license and protection on their creation, they'll click on "It is mine, my IP, nobody else should reuse it".
I really think this is only just the beginning of a broader DRM tool.
...great way to start building acceptance for DRM. Attaching a license electronically to the file (even the Creative Commons license) is still attaching DRM. Now, DRM is not all that bad: implemented properly (ie, let the marketplace make its own decisions whether or not to participate in DRM labeling) and it could save hundreds of millions in transactions costs on obtaining permissions. I would love to know what legal terms were attached to a particular item. The problem is, if DRM becomes a mandatory attachment for acceptance of files in general internet traffic (ie, they might not even be accepted without DRM as an email attachment), then fair use really will cease to exist.
a r b o r l a w -- legal blog for entrepreneurs and small business
No, just the angry, belligerent, and or annoying ones.
Cogito, ergo sig.
Please don't use this plugin if you are releasing your content under a free Creative Commons licence. No document is free if it's encoded in one of Microsoft's proprietry formats. You are much better off to use the online Creative Commons licence chooser, and copy the text to a document written in OpenOffice.org, TeX, Gnumeric, HTML or the like yourself. This way, you will know that all your potential audience is able to read the document (even if they have to download some software first), even in ten years time when Microsoft Office XP is no longer supported and the current version makes a hash of old files.
Look out!
I'm glad I have /. to keep me informed of the latest bleeding edge software development.
Doesn't it make you feel good to know that our freedoms are protected by politicans, lawyers and journalists.
Hrm... Well, then how about these:
"Microsoft today announced the release of its Simple List Extensions specification to RSS under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike license." (source)
"The Microsoft-hosted PatternShare community brings together information on software patterns organized by wiki inventor and now Microsoft employee Ward Cunningham." (source)
From Lawrence Lessig's blog: "So we have 10 days left in the Creative Commons campaign. This is not a drill. We are down to the last $100,000, and really need your support..." (source) And then a few days later... "At 12:30pm, an envelope from Redmond appeared at the Creative Commons office. Inside, a check for $25,000. From Microsoft." (source)
And so forth
The Online Slang Dictionary
But with all that said, I intend to apply a Creative Commons license to ALL of *my* TPS reports, spreadsheets, and customer presentations that, on a good day, 6 people in the world actually care about.
Mash that up, bitches!