Development of Creative Commons licenses

["Greg London" <email AT greglondon.com>]

:Hello,
:
:Hey I've got a blog engine and website content management
:system that I'd like to give away to folks for their
:personal use.  My product is not distributed as source
:code -- it is distributed as an executable file (DLL) and
:other user-alterable files such as configuration file,
:style sheets, and content files.
:
:CC by-nc-sa 2.5 seems perfect. It appears that this
:license will let folks...
:
:DO THIS:
:
:* alter default sytlesheets
:* alter default template files
:* alter default configuration files
:* add images
:* add content
:* create and manage a website for themselves or others for
:non-commercial use
:
:BUT NOT DO THIS:
:
:* create a website for a client then charge them for it

It sounds like you could concievably use CC-BY-NC-ND
for the executable, and then CC-BY-NC-SA for all the
user-configurable files (stylesheets, templates,
config files).

The thing is that what you're doing is sort of like
"shareware" of the 80's which was a short lived
concept expounding a particular version of "free"
meaning "no cost". Shareware programs were distributed
as executables, often with limited capabilities,
and to get the full functionality, you'd have to
pay extra. Shareware was executable only, so no one
could realistically do much of anything with the
program to make it better. derivatives were too hard.

The "Shareware" phenomenon faded out I think towards
the end of the 80's, though it isn't completely gone.
The thing about it is that it is "free" as in beer,
not free as in speech, and that rubs a lot of people
the wrong way. Not that shareware is right or wrong,
but that those who espouse "free speech" are generally
disdainful of "free beer".

The thing about CC is that their licenses actually
span the spectrum from "free speech" all the way to
one jot short of "all rights reserved", so its really
hard to take the indignation of some "free speech"
person seriously around Creative Commons, which supports
and allows a license as restrictive as

CC-BY-NC-ND

Clearly that is a "free beer" license. but the "free speech"
folk might get indignant about your request anyway.
That's the lot you get when you ask for free advice.

Now, as for your particular issue, first, CC licenses
SAY they are not for software or executables, however,
I think that is more a political statement by CC to
declare that they don't want to compete with GNU-GPL,
in an effort to alleviate any nervousness from the
GNU folks who might otherwise have seen CC as competition.

I think an executable still qualifies as a copyright work.
which means that the rights to "copy", "distribute", and
"create derivative works" still applies. Which means,
I believe you could apply CC-BY-NC-ND to your executable
and get what you wanted to accomplish. The caveat would
be to read the fine print again about the NonCommercial
part to see if there are any loopholes that might allow
commercial use somehow. I don't think there are any,
but I am not a lawyer, this is not legal advice, etc...

Second, just be aware that executables are considered by
most to be "shareware" or "free beer", which means that
if you actually try to make a business of this, you'll
run into some folks who may bad mouth you for using a
free-beer license and distribute only an executable.

CC doesn't actually care how you use their license.
They recommend you don't use them for software,
but as I said, that's more a political statement
than a license restriction. CC is all about a
"Spectrum of rights" and some people use CC licenses
to give away free copies and then attempt to sell
the commercial rights, some give away free copies
but retain attribution rights as a way to get
free advertising.

Using a CC license on an executable is on the far
right of the "all rights reserved" spectrum, but
technically, it still qualifies as "some rights reserved"
and I believe a CC license would still be applicable
if you chose to use one.

Best of luck.
Greg

http://www.somerightsreserved.org/




:My two questions:
:
:(1) Could folks comment on my current understanding of
:said license terms?
:(2) Can I exempt the DLL from the license?  Meaning, I do
:not want my product's DLL altered (because then, well,
:it's really not my product is it?) If I need an exemption,
:what would it look like?
:
:Thanks for any insight you can provide.


> Evan,
>
> Your comment and candor are greatly appreciated.  The
> feedback from this forum has convinced me to seek some
> other licensing model.
>
> I would like to comment on your characterization of my
> inquiries:
>> If you insist on not giving away your information for free, please stop
>> asking us to give away ours.
>
> For the record, I have been seeking -- and continue to
> seek for -- a way, in fact, to give my product away for
> free -- yet trying to ensure that others not profit from
> something they did not pay for.  I believe there is no
> ethical dychotomy in requesting assistance for those ends.
>
> I have great respect for CC and had sincerely hoped that
> its model would match my needs.  If you or others have
> been offended by my posts, I offer my most sincere
> apologies.
> _______________________________________________
> cc-licenses mailing list
> cc-licenses AT lists.ibiblio.org
> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-licenses
>


-- 
Bounty Hunters: Metaphors for Fair IP laws
http://www.greglondon.com/bountyhunters/