Slashdot Mirror
Creative Commons v3.0 Launched
An anonymous reader writes "Creative Commons announced the release of its licenses on Friday 23 Feb 2007. Changes include "Clarifications Negotiated With Debian and MIT", CC-BY-SA "compatibility structure", endorsement control, etc."
Does it mean Iceweasel will finally be renamde firefox ? Or am I completly missing something here ?
The Wise adapts himself to the world. The Fool adapts the world to himself. Therefore, all progress depends on the Fool.
a. [...] If You create an Adaptation, upon notice from any Licensor You must, to the extent practicable, remove from the Adaptation any credit as required by Section 4(b), as requested. All six primary Creative Commons licenses contain this provision. The GNU copyleft licenses (GNU General Public License and GNU Free Documentation License) do not allow authors to require downstream users to alter or remove credits. Therefore, it appears that the Creative Commons licenses are still incompatible with GNU licenses, and works under a Creative Commons license cannot be used in works under GNU licenses such as GPL computer games and GFDL software manuals. I've explained this in more detail on my user page on Wikimedia Commons.
I seriously do not understand exactly what that passage you quoted says. I've read it through a few times, but it's so incredibly soaked in marketing speak that the essence of the information actually seems hidden. "Remix creativity in the way that flexible licenses are intended to enable"?
Correct me if I'm wrong about this. Isn't it so that technically, while it is possible to say that if license A allows for uses B and C, one can use the work in those ways, it is not possible to say that if license A is fully compatible with license B, the a work licensed under license A is also licensed under license B. This is simply impossible, even if license B is very highly similar to license A. Not unless someone grabs the work, makes a derivative, and then decides to release it under the fully compatible license B.
To be honest, that sounds reasonable to me, if it is what I think it's like.
i really wonder how anybody would care about being "compatible" with it.
HI O WISE PRINCE. WHT TOOK U SO DAM LONG?
Public domain is a greatly underrated and overlooked choice. It can make life vastly easier for users by not having to worry about tracking credits for every little nitpicking minutiae, but instead depends on commonsense ethics to make acknowledgments where appropriate, without having to worry about violating the fine print of some legal copyright license. For minor stuff where suing would be silly even if someone plagiarized it - from a simple utility icon to this very post you're reading - I think public domain release makes a lot of sense for those willing to do it but who are now simply unaware of the possibility.
On the other hand, they still haven't clarified the fine legal points of exactly what "commercial use" means. As I've posted here before, almost anything can be interpreted as "commercial use" if someone is so inclined. IMO almost any use of works under a noncommecial-only license is a risk not worth taking. In addition, they can't be incorporated into GPL software, so for open-source development "noncommercial-only" works are completely worthless.
So what? If they were completely compatible then I'd wonder what was the point of making up a new license at all. They don't do the same thing. The GPL is intended for use with software, Creative Commons adapts the idea of copyleft to apply to more traditional publishing.
I think the point is that there are different needs for different sorts of publishing. If you are working on code and its documentation, GPL is the way to go. Probably also a good choice for textbooks. More personalized work, like fiction, opinion pieces, even some technical discussions, need to be protected from unacknowledged alteration, so verbatim copying, or enforced modification of credits is entirely appropriate.
The concept of Free Software as embodied by the GPL does not generalize well beyond the confines of software, at least not without the sorts of modifications provided by Creative Commons licenses.
yp.
People (e.g., Debian) who want to distribute a program that is licensed under the GPL and that uses data files (icons, music, etc) that is licensed under Creative Commons licenses care.
I think the most important development is that the GPL and the LGPL are now official Creative Commons Licenses: http://creativecommons.org/license/cc-gpl?lang=en and http://creativecommons.org/license/cc-lgpl?lang=en .
I also like the "human readable" version of the licenses which list out the four essential software freedoms in a "deed" format: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/GPL/2.0/
I think that there are more people who are familiar with the CC licensing system, than with the GPL, so this should really be helpful.
Of course, there is an issue as to whether the other CC licenses are compatible with the GPL/CC-GPL or with debian, etc. Thats where the debate is too.
I use CC licenses for my Java AI and Common Lisp primer "free web books" and was the 'featured commoner' a few years ago.
:-)
I am pleased that CC is not standing still on licenses. Although I have written 14 published books, there are a few strong reasons why I am transitioning to CC open content authoring; the the primary reason is that I tend to be interested in niche technical areas and conventional publishers in the past have pressured me to tailor my works to a larger market. I am in the slow process of "dual publishing" my CC licensed content: free PD downloads and lulu.com instant print books for a fee for the occasional reader who wants a physical book.
My original motive for doing CC open content was simply that I got tired of having teachers, etc. ask if they good copy a chapter or two of my published books for their students - and my having to turn down their requests because my publishers own my material. Other reasons for CC based open content are a wider readership and thus more frequent interesting connections with my readers.
Really, the only advantage of using publishers is making money
What they were attempting to do is harmonize the rules around the world. Some nations (like France and Japan) strongly enforce a class of rights called "moral rights". These rights are held by the author of a work, are non-transferable, and never expire. They allow the author to demand attribution and prevent his work from being mutilated.
Rather than releasing people from moral rights to the greatest extent possible, CC decided to impose these moral rights restrictions on the entire world. Worse, the terminology is hamfisted and more restrictive than the moral rights laws almost anywhere. As a result you must comply with this vague term as well as the applicable moral rights laws.
The net effect is that anyone who has a copyright interest in a CC-By-* work now has a powerful tool built out of copyright law to attack anyone who modifies their work in a way which they disapprove, or anyone who redistributes their work in the process of criticizing. This discriminates against some classes of use and is not acceptable in a free license. CC already offers -ND terms for authors who are concerned that their works will be modified.
Slander, misrepresentation, and other forms of fraud are bad but there are laws in every civilized nation to prevent these things. We do not need or want additional restrictions for this purpose imposed in a license which purports to be intended for free content. If they were concerned about the interpretation and validity of the license in places like France they would have been better off including a clarification which stated that the authors intent is to allow derivative works to the greatest extent possible, but that the license doesn't wave your other obligations under the law such as restrictions involving personality rights, trademark, patent, slander, etc.
If you're a newbie to slashdot and not down with the groupthink yet, you might want to find out more about what people expect in a free content license. Check out http://freedomdefined.org/Definition
This is not new, they've had the summaries and web badges for GPL since 2004 http://web.archive.org/web/20040416235826/http://c reativecommons.org/license/cc-lgpl?lang=en
I'm still looking for an "Encourage Linux" license that basically says you can use it for free on a Linux box, but you gotta pay me for use on a Windows system. ;-)
Actually, it is good to see Creative Commons keeping up with the licenses. I wouldn't be mad if they ventured out into a new hybrid software license.
In recent years, Creative Commons has gone in an 'Open Source' direction, far from the principles of the Free Software Foundation that CC founder Lawrence Lessig said inspired his movement in the first place (cue howling anti-RMS Slashdotters).
In fact, in the recent GPLv3 furor, Lessig came down on the side of Linus Torvalds, against Richard Stallman. This is when I first began questioning the value of supporting CC by using one of their licenses.
It seems, like others in the 'Open Source' movement, CC has mades its compromises and now plays nicely with those who want to make a ton of money off of user generated content (MySpace, Rupert Murdoch anyone?), without necessarily preserving the rights of users.
CC now resides in the ESR category.
I don't know why my initial comment was moderated -1 "flamebait," since I wasn't trying to flame anyone. Perhaps I was a little too angry this morning over the new licensing, but I was never trying to flame anyone.
Creative Commons is a disaster.
Jonathan Coulton's songs are released under CC-NC-BY-SA 2.5. That means I can only use them in works that are also CC-NC-BY-SA 2.5. So if someone on Jamendo (or whatever) releases a song under CC-BY-SA 2.5, I can't make a mashup of them with either license. I can't make a movie, under any license, that contains both songs. That "open movie" Elephants Dream that was all over digg/slashdot was released under CC-BY, but its soundtrack was released under CC-NC-ND, so I can't mix the existing soundtrack with Coulton's or whoever's music.
In fact, this whole fad of having hundreds of different "licenses" from every company with slightly different wording is completely ruining the spirit of freedom and the internet. Wikipedia is released under the GFDL. I can't print out an article and distribute it without attaching the entire text of the GFDL. That's a free open-content encyclopedia? Same with Wikibooks. Meanwhile, MIT's OpenCourseWare is released under CC-BY-NC-SA 2.5, so I can't combine a Wikipedia article with an MIT "open course". I can't include pictures from DeviantArt or Flickr if they're released under any other license.
The whole thing is so crazy and short-sighted.
We only need three licenses, and they are completely compatible in one direction:
Before you ask what the hell I'm talking about: yes, you can release art (books, pictures, or anything else) under the GPL (and BSD, obviously). And you should choose that over any Creative Commons licenses.
Already so much content exists under the GPL that it's crazy to prevent your "open content" from being used in it.
A lot of books that I find in the computer section of a Barnes & Noble store describe some computer program. In a sense, they are third-party manuals. In particular, two of Mark Watson's web books are a manual for Sun's J2SE SDK and a manual for Common Lisp. (For this discussion, I'm ignoring the AI book and the fiction.) What happens once a program's maintainer releases a new version of the program with changes that make parts of the book no longer relevant, and the author cannot be contacted? Try using the second half of a Windows 98/Me book on a PC using Windows XP software to see what I mean. In the free world, why should one have to start from scratch when describing an improved program? Worse, even if one does start from scratch, why should one have to risk subconscious copying lawsuits?
It's not that I'm ungrateful. Due to my condition, my mind understands concepts by understanding their boundaries, and I am exploring the boundaries of the nd-nc mentality.