Development of Creative Commons licenses

["B. Jean" <veille.jus AT gmail.com>]

adam hyde a écrit :
> hey
>
> 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.
>   
By using the license of you own choice, you avoid any confusion. You 
speak about compatibilité : the GPL is also incompatible with all other 
licenses (in fact, there are an exception since the last update)... 
About the weakness of the GPL about free content, you can read the 
Rosen's Book about  "Open Source Licensing " [1] . Your very strong : 
providing a link entitled " why not use GPL for Manuals " to use GPL... 
for manuals ! :-) 
But I see what you mind.

By the SFDL, I mean the Simple Free D.. L.., an other draft you can find 
one the draft's website [2] ; which would certainly be the best GNU 
license for content.

Finally, some other licenses for contents are available : like the Free 
Art License. This one might be compatible with the CC-By-SA in its 
earlier version (1.3, still not translated).

Of course, do as you want, but knowingly these critics.

Regards,
Ben

[1] http://www.rosenlaw.com/oslbook.htm
[2] http://gplv3.fsf.org/sfdl-dd1.txt
[3] http://artlibre.org/licence/lal/en/
> 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."
> http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/nonsoftware-copyleft.html
>
> 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
> model.:
> "Meanwhile, the GFDL has clauses that help publishers of free manuals
> make a profit from selling copies"
> http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#WhyNotGPLForManuals
>
> Also, if someone can explain to me what the difference is between
> documentation and software I will buy them that elusive free beer.
>
> adam
>
>
>
> 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:
> > > http://en.flossmanuals.net/license
> > >
> > > 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
> >
> >