Slashdot Mirror
Creative Commons Launches Version 4.0 of Its Licenses
revealingheart writes "Creative Commons has launched new versions of their flexible copyright licenses, after two years of input. Changes include waiving database and moral rights where possible, and adjustments to attribution requirements. Licenses are now designed to work internationally by default."
Like to see alternatives to GNU. It has way too much popularity in the majority of software out there. Though the popular ones like X and Mozilla have their licenses. I like the BSD personally but would like to see more take off as well.
I am aware CC is more common with literal works than source code but it can be applied to both.
http://saveie6.com/
> I like the BSD personally but would like to see more take off as well.
Please don't use the BSD license. As Stallman has explained at length, its original version had the obnoxious advertising clause that made compliance very difficult for large projects. Even though there now is the "new style BSD" license, it is easy to confuse the two and mistakenly promote the old one. The MIT/X license is equivalent to the new BSD license and does not suffer from the confusion of multiple versions, so please use it instead of the BSD license.
Stallman opposes companies and anyone wanting to make a living writing software when he bashes tax payer funded code with forcing corps who also pay taxes from not using it.
You can mod me down or call me what you like but it is fact that if I want to buy a mac (I hate Apple but for the sake of argument) and there is a cool piece of software then I can not have it. Why? If Apple does one include statement in c++ that includes a header that is GNU then the whole thing has to be free as well which is why critics called GPL viral.
I am not a troll here. But corporations have a right to distribute software as well. Sure the code is yours and if you don't want the mean bad corp to use it then use GNU. While it is true that corporations can use GNU they can not distribute it.
So MacOSX can't use it hence why they use CLANG now.
Many programmers do not know when they make source GNU they prohibit any use that is non free. LGPL satisfies this but no one knows what that is and then the programmers wonder why no one is using their source besides other geeks.
BSD new style is not really that much different than the old other than I do not have to give credit to some college at Berkeley that I never went too. The GPL V2 vs V3 is very incompatible.
My point is I want to see more licenses because I fear this GNU thing is a religion. At the end of the day if someone wants to make money I have no problem using it.
http://saveie6.com/
I personally prefer the ISC license: http://opensource.org/licenses/ISC
Specifically because it does not have the advertising clause - i.e. I do NOT want 3rd parties to be using my company name in their advertising.
*--jeffk++
ipv6 is my vpn
There's nothing incompatible with making money from code and using GPL-licensed products. Apple, or anyone else, is perfectly free to sell products, for cash money, that use GPL products. The only "viral imposition" that the GPL requires is that Apple pass along the same benefits of freedom that they enjoyed in using someone else's GPL'd code to the people buying software from them. GPL doesn't mean you have to give away your code for free to anyone --- just that the people you do give it to, possibly for loads of money, get to see, modify, improve, and redistribute the stuff using GPL'd code.
If its linked dynamically or statically anywhere then that must be opened too. Read the license?
Developers are so uninformed on this. Its why Iced Tea had to include a classpath exception or Redhat and its customers couldnt use it.
http://saveie6.com/
Right, if your code is relying on the functionality that someone else generously gave you and the whole world to freely use, then you have to play nice and pass along the same freedoms that you're enjoying to link the GPL'd code's functionality into your product.
I see you mentioned RedHat --- for a company with over a billion dollars revenue, RH doesn't seem to be suffering too badly from the inability to make money while building on GPL'd products. They seem to have found plenty of ways to add enough value to convince people to pay them for a product that you can get for free through other channels (CentOS). None of their programmers are going home unpaid because of the "eeeevil profit-killing GPL."
I second the ISC license and use it whenever I'm not using the GPL. The ISC is also the shortest which means people might actually be able to read and understand it.
Ooookay, then explain EXACTLY how I'm supposed to make money when somebody can give away my work for free and there ain't a damned thing I can do about it?
It is THIS, this right here that has made Liunux on the desktop a non starter, as there is ZERO way for anybody to make dime on the desktop. Just ask Canonical how much money they have lost of Shuttleworth's with pretty much zero chance of ever getting into the black. After all why would anybody give a dime for Ubuntu when they can have every. single. bit. of work canonical does for free with mint or any of the other derivatives? Not to mention the whole "busted shitter" problem where major bugs last for years because nobody is being paid to fix them.
The GPL works in servers because the money isn't in the software, its in hosting and hardware. it works in embedded because Google is able to make money from ads (and they refuse to go near GPL V3 as they lock down more and more of Android) but just as you will NEVER in a million years see a triple A video game that is GPL so too will Linux go nowhere on the desktop thanks to GPL.
Its just too bad that the community continues to hang onto a mistaken belief that because a license works in ONE place it will work in ALL places. At the end of the day the ONLY places where the GPL can work is if your business can fall under the "blessed three" model of 1.-Selling support/services, 2.- Selling hardware, 2.- The tin cup begging model. If your business can't get enough capital to function using one of those three, like videogames or desktops? Well there is a reason why Jobs took BSD and built an empire and Shuttleworth took Linux and just bled his bank account for his trouble.
ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.