Development of Creative Commons licenses

[adam hyde <adam AT xs4all.nl>]

> 
> Internally:
> 
> http://wiki.creativecommons.org/FAQ#I_used_part_of_a_Creative_Commons-licensed_work.2C_which_Creative_Commons_license_can_I_relicense_my_work_under.3F

ask someone, anyone, that is not subscribed to this list what 'similar
license' means

> Externally:
> 
> http://creativecommons.org/compatiblelicenses

- > lists no licenses



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

in the case of documentation this is very easy

> 
> > 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.

i dont think it works for wikipedia. i asked the chairwoman this
question this year at Holland Open, she agreed there are issues, and
said they "don't police the license"..thats not an example of the FDL
working fine

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

the sfdl still talks about documentation as if it means the same as
'book' and has strange clauses because of this...the FSF need to get out
of this mode, it makes the license unwieldly and too difficult to
use...have you read it? it is more complicated to understand how to
apply it to docs than any license i have seen. it also has bizarre
arbitrary statements like:

"tou may publish a work, a Modified Version, or a collection, of up to
20,000 characters of text (excluding formatting mark-up) in electronic
form, or up to 12 normal printed pages,"


where do these numbers come from? they seem plucked from the air and
seem to me to further try to protect publishers...we want licenses that
suit the electronic world of documentation, not licenses to protect
specific business models 

> 
> > 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.


rather over simplistic dont you think? ever read a man page?...what is
it? software? documentation? what about a webpage? a pdf? the 'about'
page in any software? yam info? gnome help?


adam


> 
> - Rob.
> 
> _______________________________________________
> cc-licenses mailing list
> cc-licenses AT lists.ibiblio.org
> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-licenses
> 
-- 


adam hyde
'free as in media'

~/.nl

http://www.flossmanuals.net
http://www.simpel.cc
http://www.radioqualia.net