Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

cc-licenses - Re: [cc-licenses] Share Alike but where? How "alike"?

cc-licenses AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Development of Creative Commons licenses

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: Daniel Carrera <daniel.carrera AT zmsl.com>
  • To: Discussion on the Creative Commons license drafts <cc-licenses AT lists.ibiblio.org>
  • Subject: Re: [cc-licenses] Share Alike but where? How "alike"?
  • Date: Sun, 16 Oct 2005 16:53:12 +0100

Takemoto wrote:

"Share HERE alike" need not mean "Share at the same URL alike"
there is no need for that restriction. The meaning of "HERE" can be much wider:

"Share on the Internet Alike"

That's better. But consider, you provide a resource on the internet. Why would you prohibit me from using it on a newsletter (paper) in my office? Or a presentation for school.

Subsequent users are still only one click away from the source of creativity. Hence, by insisting on "on the Internet," the all important creative community
network remains cohesive.

I don't understand your definition of "cohesive". There is nothing cohesive about the internet. Nor do I see the advantage in this restriction.

In order to give the "Share Alike" licence
the same positive potential as the GNU, all that would be required is to insist upon THE SAME licence. By "the same", I do not mean a copy.
I mean the exact same one. This can be achieved only if the derivative work is on the net.

There is no reason why forcing people to post their work on the internet will cause more creativity. Notice that the GPL does *not* make any such requirement.

Also, the license is called GPL, not GNU. GNU is a project (and an operating system) not a license.


You are right. The GPL (?) / GNU licence does not require that derivative works are shared at the same site.

Yes, it's called GPL. For General Public License. There is no such thing as "GNU license". GNU is a project comprised of many sub projects under different libraries. Most notably the GPL and LGPL for software and GFDL for documentation.

But in the case of software,
it will be shared at a site somewhere.

This is neither a requirement of the license, nor a universal fact. A lot of groups produce GPL software without having it dowloadable from a website (e.g. the source might be included on the CD they send you, or they might offer to send you the CD later for the cost of shipping).

And if the software contains the URL of the source,

Not always.

then subsequent users are only one click away
from that source.

Not true, not always, and not by a licensing requirement.

The attribution was not changed in the way you suggested above.

As far as I am aware, earlier versions of the attribution licence only mentioned the use of a name, not the inclusion of a link.

But not a requirement to put the derivative on the same website, or on any website at all.

Cheers,
Daniel.
--
/\/`) http://oooauthors.org
/\/_/
/\/_/ No trees were harmed in the creation of this email.
\/_/ However, a significant number of electrons were
/ were severely inconvenienced.




Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page