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: "B. Jean" <veille.jus AT>
  • To: Discussion on the Creative Commons license drafts <cc-licenses AT>
  • Subject: Re: [cc-licenses] can someone check this wrapper for me?
  • Date: Mon, 23 Jul 2007 15:34:13 +0200

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 stallman further
"At least two commercial publishers of software manuals have told me
they are interested in using this license."

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 ...

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.



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."

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
"Meanwhile, the GFDL has clauses that help publishers of free manuals
make a profit from selling copies"

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


On Mon, 2007-07-23 at 12:46 +0200, B. Jean wrote:
adam hyde a écrit :

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:


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,

Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page