Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

cc-licenses - Re: [cc-licenses] can someone check this wrapper for me?

cc-licenses AT

Subject: Development of Creative Commons licenses

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: adam hyde <adam AT>
  • To: "B. Jean" <veille.jus AT>
  • Cc: Discussion on the Creative Commons license drafts <cc-licenses AT>
  • Subject: Re: [cc-licenses] can someone check this wrapper for me?
  • Date: Mon, 23 Jul 2007 13:00:26 +0200


well, in my opinion CC is a mess. I'm sorry to have to say it, but its
just too confusing to anyone wanting to use material to have a dozen
licenses to contend with, with no information about what licenses are
compatible internally or external to the CC license family.

The GPL is 1 license, and can be applied to non-software:
"any work of any nature that can be copyrighted can be copylefted with
the GNU GPL."

I wish the CC would have made the CC-GPL wrapper and stopped there. It would
have made the world a much better place for freedom of content.

As for the FDL. It is not a free license, and the FSF should drop it. I
can't believe they get away with saying it is 'free' when it has clauses
intended to protect publishers form losing their publishing business
"Meanwhile, the GFDL has clauses that help publishers of free manuals
make a profit from selling copies"

Also, if someone can explain to me what the difference is between
documentation and software I will buy them that elusive free beer.


On Mon, 2007-07-23 at 12:46 +0200, B. Jean wrote:
> adam hyde a écrit :
> > hi,
> >
> > I just modified the CC-GPL wrapper a bit to make it easier to read, and
> > also to use it for applying to documentation.
> >
> > If anyone has time to look at it I would appreciate any comments about
> > its wording and if I have left out anything critical:
> >
> >
> > adam
> >
> Hello,
> Just a question : what's the reason for using GNU GPL on documentary
> works ? This well-known license is excellent for software, but unadapted
> for other works, like books or manuals. For exemple, the GNU GPL v2 do
> not speak about " representing " the work : thereby, you can copy the
> work, but you are not allowed to represent it...
> Some other licenses, like the CC-By-SA or the next GNU SFDL, are written
> consequently and would be more appropriate.
> Best regards,
> Ben

adam hyde
'free as in media'


Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page