Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

cc-licenses - Re: [cc-licenses] derivatives and source

cc-licenses AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Development of Creative Commons licenses

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: adam <adam AT xs4all.nl>
  • To: cc-licenses AT lists.ibiblio.org
  • Subject: Re: [cc-licenses] derivatives and source
  • Date: Sat, 07 Apr 2012 09:18:30 +0200



On 07/04/12 04:52, Mike Linksvayer wrote:


Through practice. Which, I believe is what adam (Hyde, of FLOSS
Manuals) does -- many of FM books are under GPL. This seems like a
good place to practice practice, as the preferred modifiable forms are
pretty obvious. I believe
http://www.booki.cc/a-webpage-is-a-book/free-content/ is his current
writing on the matter. If I were adam I'd want some form of one-way BY
and BY-SA compatibility with GPL rather than adding source
requirements to CC licenses.*

(hi - mike, you might know me by this email address - it is adamh :)

I would normally agree but we must also admit that licenses are not just licenses. CC as a meme is on one level a primary marketing vehicle for free culture. The GPL, as much as I love it, is not seen as a player in this greater context - it is seen as exclusively married to software. FLOSS Manuals uses the GPL for books and I believe it *is* the right license for source requirements for us but I can't tell you how many people write to me almost on a monthly basis asking why we use a software license for culture. Many of them get agitated when I tell them the GPL is not just a software license. They simply don't believe me no matter how many references I send them.

I do not believe you can convince even a small minority of software devs that the GPL can be applied to other content - they will not believe you. I also don't believe you can convince culture and knowledge workers in the greater sense - that the GPL is not a software license. I have tried repeatedly and the message does not float.

So, it might be a point to argue that this is the FSFs problem - get a better marketing team - but promoting the GPL for non-software works is by and large not their mandate as they see it.

CC on the other hand has a strong hold in this area and I would argue that mindshare in this discussion is as important as the terms of the license themselves. In that light I really believe it is both necessary and possible to make a source requirement in the CC licenses.

A source requirement might be stated together with something like "unless otherwise stated the artifact provided is to be considered to be the source". This avoids the complex 'what is a source' but it does place the emphasis on the license holder to consider what the source is and the mechanical requirements of licenses that allow derivatives.

adam




Mike

* Yes I realize the tension
_______________________________________________
List info and archives at
http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-licenses
Unsubscribe at http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/options/cc-licenses

In consideration of people subscribed to this list to participate
in the CC licenses http://wiki.creativecommons.org/4.0 development
process, please direct unrelated discussions to the cc-community list
http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-community





Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page