[cc-licenses] Color-coding, was Re: Getting to Version 3.0

Evan Prodromou evan at prodromou.name
Thu May 18 12:10:26 EDT 2006


On Thu, 2006-18-05 at 14:13 +0000, Terry Hancock wrote:

> Regarding the section on disambiguating licenses, ever since that guy asked
> about license buttons for non-free EULA-type licenses, I'v been thinking 
> that
> some kind of color-coding scheme would be extremely helpful, both for 
> clarity
> and as a marketing tool, e.g.:

I think that there are some alternatives that would be more useful,
actually. I think that using logos or "compatibility notices" from known
good organizations such as the Open Source Institute, Debian, and the
Free Software Foundation would be a great way to distinguish Free
licenses from less-than-free ones.

I've written up an essay on the subject in my blog, which see:

        http://evan.prodromou.name/CC_Licence_Distinctions

I think the main downside to this plan is that there will have to be
some careful management of the appearance of "endorsement" versus just
"review". The FSF, for example, calls the 2.0 Attribution and
Attribution-ShareAlike licenses "free", but it recommends against their
use because Creative Commons doesn't distinguish it from other licenses.
Ironically, it's unclear whether they'd be friendly to the use of their
name to make that distinction.

~Evan


________________________________________________________________________
Evan Prodromou <evan at prodromou.name>
http://evan.prodromou.name/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/cc-licenses/attachments/20060518/fc7ca343/attachment.html 
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 191 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
Url : http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/cc-licenses/attachments/20060518/fc7ca343/attachment.bin 


More information about the cc-licenses mailing list