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."

19 of 134 comments (clear)

  1. Why do you need an add-in? by ThinkingInBinary · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:Why do you need an add-in? by ReverendLoki · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I for one can see how this would be useful. You see, there isn't one set of terms and conditions, but rather there's a whole range of possible conditions applicable under Creative Commons licensing.

      What this looks like is pretty much a wizard that asks you how you would like to allow your work to be used, and then generates the CC license for those conditions. Although a nice add on, it really doesn't look all that complicated. I'm hoping it isn't long until someone makes a good wizard for OpenOffice.org as well.

      --
      09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0
    2. Re:Why do you need an add-in? by HotNeedleOfInquiry · · Score: 3, Interesting

      A total non-event. Just shows that the most mindless gadget or add-in can be news if it's within the open-source/free-software/free-copyright paradigm.

      --
      "Eve of Destruction", it's not just for old hippies anymore...
    3. Re:Why do you need an add-in? by monomania · · Score: 5, Informative

      "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..."

      There is; on the web badge code, the following (or, depending on the license, something similar) is encapsulated:

      <rdf:RDF xmlns="http://web.resource.org/cc/"
              xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
              xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax -ns#">
      <Work rdf:about="">
      <license rdf:resource="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/ by/2.5/" />
      </Work>
      <License rdf:about="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/ 2.5/">
            <requires rdf:resource="http://web.resource.org/cc/Attributi on" />
            <permits rdf:resource="http://web.resource.org/cc/Reproduct ion" />
            <permits rdf:resource="http://web.resource.org/cc/Distribut ion" />
            <permits rdf:resource="http://web.resource.org/cc/Derivativ eWorks" />
            <requires rdf:resource="http://web.resource.org/cc/Notice" />
      </License>
      </rdf:RDF>

      It's up to the browser/search engine/application as to what is done with it.

    4. Re:Why do you need an add-in? by Geoffreyerffoeg · · Score: 4, Informative

      then if some search engine (Google? please?) would explicitly label Creative Commons results as such

      From advanced search:

      Return results that are:
      - not filtered by license
      - free to use or share
      - free to use or share, even commercially
      - free to use share or modify
      - free to use, share or modify, even commercially
      More info

  2. Why should they need to? by Manip · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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? ... ?

    1. Re:Why should they need to? by Ctrl+Alt+De1337 · · Score: 5, Informative
      If you don't attach a license with your work anyone can do anything with it without you being able to do anything about it.

      This is the exact opposite of what the law says. If you create an original work of any kind, whether or not you register it with the copyright office it is still copyrighted to you and no one can do anything with it without your permission. If you don't put a license on it, then it is assumed that you are reserving all of your rights not waiving all of your rights.

    2. Re:Why should they need to? by QuantumG · · Score: 3, Insightful

      No. You are wrong. All rights are reserved by default. If I create a work that can be covered by copyright, it is covered by copyright, and you have no rights under the law to copy the work without my express written permission (excluding fair use). This is one of the many ways copyright law is draconian.

      --
      How we know is more important than what we know.
  3. Re:it is a crock off shit by nuzak · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.
  4. Re:What's the point by Keeper · · Score: 5, Insightful

    What's the point of posting on a website not under your control?

  5. Re:Not Office 2K? by cnettel · · Score: 3, Informative
    Task panes (i.e. non-modal dialog boxes integrated in the window border) were added as a new UI object in Office XP. Quite a lot of things that could have been made into wizards or plain dialog boxes in older versions are panes in XP/2003. I guess this download makes use of that GUI style as well.

    "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.

  6. That screenshot is a fake! by garcia · · Score: 5, Funny

    CNet has a screenshot available of the tool.

    That screenshot looks nothing like Ballmer!

  7. Re:What's the point by Trevahaha · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

  8. Improper licensing - What if... by Tiger4 · · Score: 3, Interesting

    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.
    1. Re:Improper licensing - What if... by ClamIAm · · Score: 3, Interesting

      This has already happened many times. When George Romero released Night of the Living Dead, they forgot to put a copyright notice on the film. The law back then stated that you must put a copyright notice on your work to maintain copyright. Because of this, this film is now in the public domain.

      My example is a bit different, but the main point is this: once something is released to the public, anyone who receives the work gains all the rights of fair use, as well as any others that you give them. The status of your document would be whatever license it got released under. As for you, you would most likely be fired and/or sued for negligence or breach of contract.

  9. You know why? by slashflood · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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.

  10. Re:it is a crock off shit by cammoblammo · · Score: 3, Funny
    Most of the F/OSS crowd is an angry, belligerent, and or annoying bunch...

    No, just the angry, belligerent, and or annoying ones.

    --

    Cogito, ergo sig.

  11. Please don't use this! by zsau · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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!
    1. Re:Please don't use this! by zsau · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Because we all know that somehow OpenOffice is guaranteed to still be maintained 10 years from now!

      True, but the format is documented so any future software can easily implement it, preserving the same formatting as the publisher intended. The same cannot be said about Word in spite of your assertions (or at least, OpenOffice.org doesn't yet maintain Word document formatting precisely). There's also other formats available; if you're really concerned about long-term preservation, I'd recommend something like HTML or plain text (for documents in which the prime concern is information); or TeX (for documents [incl. ppt slides] in whch formatting is important). I realise that TeX isn't especially fun for newbies, so OpenOffice.org documents (which are human readable even without software designed for it) in conjunction with PDF or PostScript is probably a successful compromise.

      Also, Word is not the only format in Microsoft Office. One other format likely to be used with this plugin is PowerPoint. As I'm studying for my exams and reading the PPT slides released by my lecturer, I can assure you that OpenOffice.org is far from perfect in importing those, too. Some slides are quite unreadable till I've spent a few minutes fiddling around with them.

      (See also my response to your sibling.)

      PS: I think your attitude is quite common amongst Slashdotters, which is why I felt the need to express mine; I fear yours is in the majority. I doubt you need a flame-proof suit any more than I do.

      PPS: Sorry about my tone/language, I'm in a funny mood right now and I've been reading stuff written in a funny way, so I can't quite get rid of it...

      --
      Look out!