Development of Creative Commons licenses

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

I'm going to start by the end  :-) :
> 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
>   
I agree. In fact, documentation can be considered as part of the 
software by many jurisdiction.

adam hyde a écrit :
> cool...nice points :)
>   
Which one ?
> > >       
> > 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
>   
Why does one person would think for billion's ? My thinking is that 
diversity is proof of liberty.
> > About the weakness of the GPL about free content, you can read the 
> > Rosen's Book about  "Open Source Licensing " [1] .
That was important.
What is following, wasn't ^^
> >  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
>   
I know that, as well as I know Debian attitude. However, the license is 
unadapted for these sorts of works (by example, you don't have right to 
publish the content on tv or website — useless for software... It's 
real, you can have look : right to use, to copy, to adapt, modify, to 
distribute the copy, etc. ; but not to represent) . By the way, note 
that the GPL v3 is broader than the v2 ; consequently, theses critics 
would disappear
> > 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)
>   
I agree ; but yet better than the FDL ...

Regards,
Ben
>   
> > 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.
> >     
>
> 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
> > > >
> > > >     
> > > >         
> >