Slashdot Mirror
Creative Commons Launches CC+ License
E1ven writes "Creative Commons has this week released their CC+ protocol, which provides a way for authors to allow other people to commercially reuse their work, and give them a pre-negotiated fee or percentage. It makes it easy for people to release the Material under CC-No-Commercial, and then have a way to charge for commercial use if companies are interested."
Microsoft release the CC#.NET license which makes it impossible for people to release under the CC-No-Commercial license.
ccalam - acoustic versions of new songs.
Creative Commons Launches C++ License... Do we really need another version of C++? :P
So I could CC+ license my C++ code? What if it was something for a class and I'd only gotten a C- on it? so GCC is GPL, is GGPL now CC+ licensed? I'm confused.
Finally a smart license... Open Source, but if you want binary or commercial, here are my terms... That lets the developer play nice with Open Source, but gives those that don't want to be nice to Open Source an avenue to buy, thus letting the developer playing nicer with Open Source...
"You can't make a race horse of a pig"
"No," said Samuel, "but you can make very fast pig"
If this is what i think it is, then it's exactly what i need, since i don't have the law-background needed to write a lisence myself.
Pure awesomenes
What in Satan's glorious name is that? That was disgusting!
Couldn't you just license your work under CC-*, and then license out commercial licenses anyway, given that you're the copyright holder?
five, four, three, two, one.
-"...bad old ideas look confusingly fresh when they are packaged as technology" - Jaron Lanier (Digital Maoism on Edge.o
It's like the original Creative Commons license, except with pointers.
I'm all for the CC people. Good work, I say. I like that they are targeting people who are not totally into viral free-as-in-speech licensing. (Me, I'll go with GPLv3 or PD if I ever get around to coding something on my own time. Definitely would go with CC or CC+ or possibly PD if I ever get around to finishing some music ;) It's weird that they are calling it a protocol, though. Maybe I am missing something, but it's just a license, right? I noticed they provide some XML markup to define the terms of your CC+ stuff, but that's not really a protocol...
Great, but... If I were to tell this to someone, is there a real world money example(s) to illustrate this procedure?
Say, the item I use is 1/12th the amount of major imagery in a product.
Where's the breakover for fees if:
1)A not intended for profit item that somehow accidentally earns a few hundred bucks
2)Part of a presentation in a business that I would normally pay between $5 and $200 (at iStockPhoto for example) but otherwise never sees the light of day
3)Part of a menu at a restaurant
4)Part of a large ad campaign.
Feel free to give a wide range of examples, or link to ones similar to these suggested ones.
If I'm to convince others to want to use images with this new label, I'd like to know how to explain this to potential clients.
the CC license.
I'm a small time programmer and I've been trying to find a license that allows me to release the source code for anyone to modify/use but not have the ability to take my source code and repackage it in another form and make money off it. I don't have a problem with people using the code itself to make money, my only issue is with repackaging it to sell.
I started looking at the CC license and I was pleased with it until I seen you can't offer exclusive license deals. Now I'm an idiot when it comes to understanding all the legal mumbo jumbo so if I've read something wrong please forgive me. Searching Google hasn't been much of a help because I don't really know what to search for and what I do search for tends to be more mumbo jumbo I can't seem to understand.
So my question is does a license exist for the type of situation I explained above?
You're new here, aren't you?
CCCP++ License sells you!
Duh! That was the Goatse dude. Welcome to the internet. Try not to click on any links pointing to a "tubgirl" or a "penisbird" while you're here.
I'm in the early stages of what I'm calling an experiment in open-source gaming: I have a Flash game set up at spacecreeps.com, a defense game, and it's ad-supported but I decided to make it open source as well, under the GPL. So you can make a distribution of the game with your own ads and new content, but it still has to be open-source. Alternatively, I'll try to work out appropriate compensation for working with my own distro. I'm looking at the game as an ongoing entity where specific parts can get swapped in and out of it. Copyleft becomes critical to make this work.
For the media associated with the game I settled on the Free Art license as RMS has promoted it as being in line with the copyleft ideals of GPL. The CC licenses I find awfully frustrating. Most content using CC is Sharealike-NonCommercial, which makes it radioactive for a project like mine. CC++, from the overview, is sort of an improvement, but also not exactly what I'm going for.
I am eagerly awaiting the CC++ license. /me ducks.
"Don't meddle in the affairs of a patent dragon, for thou art tasty and good with ketchup." ~ohcrapitssteve
So, what are the limits of the word 'commercial'? The way I read this license, you basically can not use this for anything. Websites with advertisements have an indirect trade or profit goal, you can't use the content on something like Youtube (which is part of a for-profit company), you can't use the artwork in a GPL'ed piece of code (it allows commercial use). Even a private artwork can be seen as a work to improve someones portfolio. The potential for good would be a lot bigger if the CC licenses didn't have this limit.
Of course, everyone should pick the license they want, but I think people underestimate just how limiting the NC licenses are for people that try to stick to the law.
Is a Red Cross advertisement commercial or noncommercial? If the Red Cross paid a magazine for an ad containing a CC+ licensed image, then the magazine is earning some money from it, even though the Red Cross itself is non-commercial. (Or is it?)
It is even hard to come up with examples where the use is disconnected from the slightest taint of a direct or indirect commercial connection.
Of course, CC+ is also incompatible with GPL-licensed software. For example, a CC licensed "non-commercial use" icon in a software package would prevent a commercial entity from using it, defeating the purpose of the GPL.
When I saw the summary I thought this was a central marketplace for CC work, with some sort of standard fee structure and licensing terms. So people making CC work could easily set commercial use prices, people buying CC work could pay instantly over the Internet through CC and be assured of standard reasonable terms without negotiation, and CC could even make a little profit. Seems to me this could be a valuable service, if CC is not allergic to profit in any form. I know there's plenty of CC-noncommercial work out there that I would have certainly paid a reasonable fee to use, if there was a standard easy way to do so.
main(c,r){for(r=32;r;) printf(++c>31?c=!r--,"\n":c<r?" ":~c&r?" `":" #");}
Excellent news! The best Christmas present for small amateur developers. Commercial copyright is a minefield in a swamp, and CC has created a bridge. Long overdue! I love creative commons.
I meant 'speech', not 'speach', duh. Not enough caffeine yet, sorry.
Insert
So in your Red Cross example, it wouldn't be necessary to run the ad in a profit-making publication to count as commercial use.
Request your free CD of my piano music.
Would this work for written content, where if someone wants to use a portion of a book, they would pay a predetermined fee to do that? The only examples I see for CC+ are code.
SEO Copywriter. Just Say ON