[cc-licenses] can someone check this wrapper for me?
adam at xs4all.nl
Mon Jul 23 08:29:04 EDT 2007
cool...nice points :)
> By using the license of you own choice, you avoid any confusion. You
> speak about compatibilité : the GPL is also incompatible with all other
> licenses (in fact, there are an exception since the last update)...
which is why I suggested that CC would have been better to just make the
cc-gpl wrapper and stop there
> About the weakness of the GPL about free content, you can read the
> Rosen's Book about "Open Source Licensing "  . Your very strong :
> providing a link entitled " why not use GPL for Manuals " to use GPL...
> for manuals ! :-)
> But I see what you mind.
the link to the " why not use GPL for Manuals " shows that the FDL is
designed to protect business models of publishers...as stallman further
"At least two commercial publishers of software manuals have told me
they are interested in using this license."
doesn't seem to me the license is focused on free as in 'libre'
the second link was to show the gpl _can_ be used for documentation.
which is my prefered choice because of the issues with the rationale of
> By the SFDL, I mean the Simple Free D.. L.., an other draft you can find
> one the draft's website  ; which would certainly be the best GNU
> license for content.
i dont think so (see earlier email)
> Finally, some other licenses for contents are available : like the Free
> Art License. This one might be compatible with the CC-By-SA in its
> earlier version (1.3, still not translated).
> Of course, do as you want, but knowingly these critics.
and another point: documentation for free software, in my opinion,
should consider being in the same license as the software itself...this
eases implementation for programmers
>  http://www.rosenlaw.com/oslbook.htm
>  http://gplv3.fsf.org/sfdl-dd1.txt
>  http://artlibre.org/licence/lal/en/
> > The GPL is 1 license, and can be applied to non-software:
> > "any work of any nature that can be copyrighted can be copylefted with
> > the GNU GPL."
> > http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/nonsoftware-copyleft.html
> > I wish the CC would have made the CC-GPL wrapper and stopped there. It would have made the world a much better place for freedom of content.
> > As for the FDL. It is not a free license, and the FSF should drop it. I
> > can't believe they get away with saying it is 'free' when it has clauses
> > intended to protect publishers form losing their publishing business
> > model.:
> > "Meanwhile, the GFDL has clauses that help publishers of free manuals
> > make a profit from selling copies"
> > http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#WhyNotGPLForManuals
> > Also, if someone can explain to me what the difference is between
> > documentation and software I will buy them that elusive free beer.
> > adam
> > On Mon, 2007-07-23 at 12:46 +0200, B. Jean wrote:
> >> adam hyde a écrit :
> >>> hi,
> >>> I just modified the CC-GPL wrapper a bit to make it easier to read, and
> >>> also to use it for applying to documentation.
> >>> If anyone has time to look at it I would appreciate any comments about
> >>> its wording and if I have left out anything critical:
> >>> http://en.flossmanuals.net/license
> >>> adam
> >> Hello,
> >> Just a question : what's the reason for using GNU GPL on documentary
> >> works ? This well-known license is excellent for software, but unadapted
> >> for other works, like books or manuals. For exemple, the GNU GPL v2 do
> >> not speak about " representing " the work : thereby, you can copy the
> >> work, but you are not allowed to represent it...
> >> Some other licenses, like the CC-By-SA or the next GNU SFDL, are written
> >> consequently and would be more appropriate.
> >> Best regards,
> >> Ben
'free as in media'
More information about the cc-licenses