Development of Creative Commons licenses

[adam hyde <adam AT xs4all.nl>]

cool...nice points :)

> >   
> 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)... 

which is why I suggested that CC would have been better to just make the
cc-gpl wrapper and stop there


> 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.

the link to the " why not use GPL for Manuals " shows that the FDL is
designed to protect business models of publishers...as stallman further
states:
"At least two commercial publishers of software manuals have told me
they are interested in using this license."
http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/why-gfdl.html

doesn't seem to me the license is focused on free as in 'libre'

the second link was to show the gpl _can_ be used for documentation.
which is my prefered choice because of the issues with the rationale of
the fdl

> 
> 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.

i dont think so (see earlier email)

> 
> 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.


and another point: documentation for free software, in my opinion,
should consider being in the same license as the software itself...this
eases implementation for programmers

adam

> 
> 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
> >>
> >>     
> 
> 
-- 


adam hyde
'free as in media'

~/.nl

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