Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

cc-licenses - Re: [cc-licenses] can someone check this wrapper for me?

cc-licenses AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Development of Creative Commons licenses

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: "B. Jean" <veille.jus AT gmail.com>
  • To: Discussion on the Creative Commons license drafts <cc-licenses AT lists.ibiblio.org>
  • Subject: Re: [cc-licenses] can someone check this wrapper for me?
  • Date: Mon, 23 Jul 2007 15:34:13 +0200

I'm going to start by the end :-) :
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
I agree. In fact, documentation can be considered as part of the software by many jurisdiction.

adam hyde a écrit :
cool...nice points :)
Which one ?
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
Why does one person would think for billion's ? My thinking is that diversity is proof of liberty.
About the weakness of the GPL about free content, you can read the Rosen's Book about "Open Source Licensing " [1] .
That was important.
What is following, wasn't ^^
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
states:
"At least two commercial publishers of software manuals have told me
they are interested in using this license."
http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/why-gfdl.html

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
the fdl
I know that, as well as I know Debian attitude. However, the license is unadapted for these sorts of works (by example, you don't have right to publish the content on tv or website — useless for software... It's real, you can have look : right to use, to copy, to adapt, modify, to distribute the copy, etc. ; but not to represent) . By the way, note that the GPL v3 is broader than the v2 ; consequently, theses critics would disappear
By the SFDL, I mean the Simple Free D.. L.., an other draft you can find one the draft's website [2] ; which would certainly be the best GNU license for content.

i dont think so (see earlier email)
I agree ; but yet better than the FDL ...

Regards,
Ben
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.

adam

Regards,
Ben

[1] http://www.rosenlaw.com/oslbook.htm
[2] http://gplv3.fsf.org/sfdl-dd1.txt
[3] 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






Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page