Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

cc-licenses - Re: Does people have to share the "source code"?

cc-licenses AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Development of Creative Commons licenses

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: Rob Myers <robmyers AT mac.com>
  • To: Discussion on the Creative Commons license drafts <cc-licenses AT lists.ibiblio.org>
  • Subject: Re: Does people have to share the "source code"?
  • Date: Fri, 27 Aug 2004 13:38:33 +0100

On Friday, August 27, 2004, at 01:17PM, Wouter Vanden hove
<wouter.vanden.hove AT pandora.be> wrote:

>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

This is true but isn't the whole picture. If I provide an audio track, people
can edit it by sampling and remixing it. If I provide the samples, score and
lyrics under a Free license, they can do a lot more. One of the advantages of
requiring people to provide source material rather than just editable
end-products is that it ensures teh availability of and distributes a pool of
source material for Free use. It populates the commons. This mirrors the
effects of the GPL in this area.

I think the license feature would be CC-PS : "Provide Source". :-)

>> 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

The GFDL requries editable formats, yes, but not the provision of source
material. For a text document there may still be a distinction between
editability and source if the document has been edited down (not uncommon) or
was produced using unreleased source material.

- Rob.




Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page