Development of Creative Commons licenses

[Wouter Vanden hove <wouter.vanden.hove AT pandora.be>]

toddd AT mypse.goracer.de wrote:


> No, that's why many people are using CC licenses for data - the "source" ist
> just not clearly defined for most data files while it is obvious for programs.

source = allow editing

> So if you want a license where people must share the "source", use the GPL.


Even better is the GNU Free Documentation License, if it's not software


> > I have made a 60 page manual about painting with Photoshop. Lets say I throw
> > a CC-license on it. 
> > A smart guy downloads the manual write four new chapters, clears up the
> > language, print the manual and sell it. But if he dont share the source code
> > - the *.doc version of the manual - people wont be able to share or change
> > the manual, unless they scan every single page. 

I would pick the GFDL-license for this

> > By the way, I really appreciate the human-readable version of the CC-license.
> > Many other open licenses has the flaw that their wierd legal code will scare
> > everybody away, except people in the Open Source world.


You don't need to always read the complete license, in order to know 
what are are allowed to do.
If it's called "open source" you have a human-readable version here,
http://opensource.org/docs/definition.php.
The other important terms that make instantaneous clear what you are 
allowed to do are "copyleft" and bsd-style".



WouterVH
www.opencursus.org