Development of Creative Commons licenses

[Mike Linksvayer <ml AT creativecommons.org>]

selussos wrote:
> I was looking at the Sleepycat.com site and I see that I links to CC for a 
> human understandable version of their license, yet no where on CC do you 
> really say that you cover Software.
> I would like to use the http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/1.0/ to explain our 
> license in plain English but should I or would that be misleading?

I guess you must be looking at 
<http://www.sleepycat.com/download/licensinginfo.shtml>.  Only the 
documentation is under a CC license.  Unfortunately they have copied the 
deed rather than linked to <http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/1.0/>.

Sleepycat's software is under their own license, see 
<http://www.sleepycat.com/download/oslicense.html>, also linked to from 
the above licensinginfo page.

Creative Commons licenses aren't intended for software 
<http://creativecommons.org/faq#faq_entry_3646>, but in theory you could 
use one.

Note that we're now offering CC packaging (human readable deed and 
machine readable metadata) for the GPL 
<http://creativecommons.org/licenses/GPL/2.0/> and LGPL 
<http://creativecommons.org/licenses/LGPL/2.1/>, and could do the same 
for other software licenses in the future.

--
  Mike Linksvayer
  http://creativecommons.org/learn/aboutus/people#21