Cc-au mailing list

[elliott bledsoe <e.bledsoe AT qut.edu.au>]

thanks for the clarification andrae. and i totally agree that software should be released under an existing open source licence. we don't need more content ghettoes. creative commons international and creative commons australia both encourage people to do so. see http://wiki.creativecommons.org/FAQ#Can_I_use_a_Creative_Commons_license_for_software.3F

what is the url of the press release you mentioned?

_elliott

 

elliott bledsoe

project officer

+61 7 3138 9597
0405059367
elliott AT creativecommons.org.au
http://creativecommons.org.au

my cc blog: http://ccelliott.blogspot.com

	The Australia Research Council Centre of Excellence for Creative Industries and Innovation funds research into Creative Commons in Australia through the ccClinic and the CC and Open Content Licensing (OCL) Models research programs. www.cci.edu.au
	Creative Commons Australia is hosted by Queensland University of Technology at the QUT Faculty of Law. It is a research project of the Intellectual Property: Knowledge, Culture and Economy research stream of the Law and Justice Research Centre. www.law.qut.edu.au

ccau online: twitter | myspace | facebook page | facebook group | google calendar

 

On 05/09/2008, at 11. 01AM, Andrae Muys wrote:

On 04/09/2008, at 3:45 PM, elliott bledsoe wrote:

hello all. it would seem that all the exciting new from creative commons at the moment is coming out of google.

not that long ago google code (http://code.google.com) introduce cc licensing, allowing hosted projects to release their code under the attribution and the attribution-share alike licences. find out more here: http://google-code-updates.blogspot.com/2008/07/introducing-content-licenses-on-google.html

As a professional software developer I thought I might clarify two points.  First, the Creative Commons licences shouldn't be used for software. The FOSS community has spent the past 20 years on issues of derivative works, patent law, and distribution. If you want to release open software, you would be extremely foolish to ignore this work. I would strongly recommend you use whichever of the MIT/BSD, Apache2.0, or (L)GPL licences best suit your purposes. Second, google isn't "allowing hosted projects to release their code under [CC-licences]," for the reasons I allude to above, they still insist on mainstream open-source licences. If you read the press release you will see that what google has done is permit the separate licensing of 'content' (music, images, icons, stories, characters, etc) within their hosted projects under CC-BY and CC-BY-SA licences, roughly corresponding to MIT/BSD/Apache2.0 and (L)GPL respectively.

Andrae Muys

--

Andrae Muys - andrae AT netymon.com

RDF/Semantic-Web Consultant

Netymon Pty Ltd

<ATT00001.txt>