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: rob AT
  • To: cc-licenses AT
  • Subject: Re: [cc-licenses] can someone check this wrapper for me?
  • Date: Mon, 23 Jul 2007 12:19:51 +0100

Quoting adam hyde <adam AT>:

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.


or more prettily:


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."

You must be able to identify source code. This is not always possible.

The GPL, as a software license, ignores copyright issues that effect e.g. music and film. The CC licenses provide better protection for non-software works.

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 Stallman says, "content" is the wrong word to use.

As for the FDL. It is not a free license,

Even Debian agree that is is free as long as you don't use invariant sections. This seems to work just fine for Wikipedia.

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"

Yes I don't like invariant sections at all. The SFDL draft gets rid of them though.

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

With all due respect to Knuth, one you read and the other you execute.

- Rob.

Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page