Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Creative Commons Launches Version 4.0 of Its Licenses

timothy posted about a year ago | from the good-news-about-fine-print dept.

The Media 47

revealingheart writes "Creative Commons has launched new versions of their flexible copyright licenses, after two years of input. Changes include waiving database and moral rights where possible, and adjustments to attribution requirements. Licenses are now designed to work internationally by default."

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Good (3, Interesting)

Billly Gates (198444) | about a year ago | (#45551917)

Like to see alternatives to GNU. It has way too much popularity in the majority of software out there. Though the popular ones like X and Mozilla have their licenses. I like the BSD personally but would like to see more take off as well.

  I am aware CC is more common with literal works than source code but it can be applied to both.

Re:Good (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45552019)

It has way too much popularity in the majority of software out there.

What is "way too much" popularity? Choose the license that you prefer and stop complaining about others' choices.

My software, my rules.

Re:Good (3, Insightful)

AIphaWolf_HK (3439155) | about a year ago | (#45552111)

My equipment, my rules. To hell with copyright.

Re:Good (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45552027)

Alternatives? Why?

You already have MIT, BSD, Mozilla, Apache - any sort of license you could want.

What would you like to improve in GPL? Why not send it to rms@gnu.org?

I don't understand.

Is the problem that it's too popular? It's good that it's popular because it spreads free software.

Re:Good (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45552697)

Richard, please stop posting anonymously on Slashdot. Everyone knows it’s you.

Re:Good (1)

Bengie (1121981) | about a year ago | (#45556949)

Popular doesn't mean good, only popular.

Re:Good (1)

gl4ss (559668) | about a year ago | (#45557059)

but the question is what kind of another license tweak does billie want?

we already have so many ranging from wtfpl to the kind of used usually in commercial sw aka do-fucking-nothing license. so many that becomes an excercise to come up with something that isn't already written down.

Re:Good (4, Informative)

QuasiSteve (2042606) | about a year ago | (#45552037)

It can be, but it's discouraged;
http://wiki.creativecommons.org/Frequently_Asked_Questions#Can_I_apply_a_Creative_Commons_license_to_software.3F [creativecommons.org]

There's plenty of free software licenses, libre and otherwise, open source and otherwise, you can choose from that have little to nothing to do with GNU (not sure if you're just referring to GPL there, or..)

Github suggests using this site, but there's other comparative / flowchart-based ones if you google about:
http://choosealicense.com/ [choosealicense.com]

Re:Good (4, Insightful)

Yvanhoe (564877) | about a year ago | (#45552257)

This is one case where competition is bad. It causes license fragmentation without adding anything to the community. CC is for works of art, designed for that and more likely to hold well in that case. GPL/LGPL/MIT/BSD are for software and are more likely to hold well in these cases. You should also consider public domain. It is a tested and proved "license" not very far from the BSD... ;-)

Re:Good (2)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | about a year ago | (#45552589)

Unless you really loath some aspect of every common license out there, that isn't the part of your project that you want to DIY... Unless you are atypically lucky, and good, you'll just get something 95% equivalent to an existing license, incompatible with virtually everything, and sufficiently ill-drafted to be unenforceable in some surprising number of jurisdictions.

Plus, the last thing that the world needs is yet more legal scrabble that nobody reads.

Re:Good (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45553099)

Maybe they just don't like leeching freeloaders, just saying.

Re:BSD-bad, MIT-good (4, Informative)

Chemisor (97276) | about a year ago | (#45552269)

> I like the BSD personally but would like to see more take off as well.

Please don't use the BSD license. As Stallman has explained at length [gnu.org] , its original version had the obnoxious advertising clause that made compliance very difficult for large projects. Even though there now is the "new style BSD" license, it is easy to confuse the two and mistakenly promote the old one. The MIT/X license is equivalent to the new BSD license and does not suffer from the confusion of multiple versions, so please use it instead of the BSD license.

Re:BSD-bad, MIT-good (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45552443)

The GPL also has multiple versions. It's *worse* than BSD since GPL 2 and GPL 3 aren't compatible. Maybe he should follow his own advice and call GPL 3 something else?

Re:BSD-bad, MIT-good (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45552461)

"Compliant" and "compatible" are two different words, you dumbass.

Re:BSD-bad, MIT-good (2, Interesting)

Billly Gates (198444) | about a year ago | (#45552465)

Stallman opposes companies and anyone wanting to make a living writing software when he bashes tax payer funded code with forcing corps who also pay taxes from not using it.

You can mod me down or call me what you like but it is fact that if I want to buy a mac (I hate Apple but for the sake of argument) and there is a cool piece of software then I can not have it. Why? If Apple does one include statement in c++ that includes a header that is GNU then the whole thing has to be free as well which is why critics called GPL viral.

I am not a troll here. But corporations have a right to distribute software as well. Sure the code is yours and if you don't want the mean bad corp to use it then use GNU. While it is true that corporations can use GNU they can not distribute it.

So MacOSX can't use it hence why they use CLANG now.

Many programmers do not know when they make source GNU they prohibit any use that is non free. LGPL satisfies this but no one knows what that is and then the programmers wonder why no one is using their source besides other geeks.

BSD new style is not really that much different than the old other than I do not have to give credit to some college at Berkeley that I never went too. The GPL V2 vs V3 is very incompatible.

My point is I want to see more licenses because I fear this GNU thing is a religion. At the end of the day if someone wants to make money I have no problem using it.

Re:BSD-bad, MIT-good (4, Informative)

femtobyte (710429) | about a year ago | (#45552665)

There's nothing incompatible with making money from code and using GPL-licensed products. Apple, or anyone else, is perfectly free to sell products, for cash money, that use GPL products. The only "viral imposition" that the GPL requires is that Apple pass along the same benefits of freedom that they enjoyed in using someone else's GPL'd code to the people buying software from them. GPL doesn't mean you have to give away your code for free to anyone --- just that the people you do give it to, possibly for loads of money, get to see, modify, improve, and redistribute the stuff using GPL'd code.

Re:BSD-bad, MIT-good (2)

Billly Gates (198444) | about a year ago | (#45552707)

If its linked dynamically or statically anywhere then that must be opened too. Read the license?

Developers are so uninformed on this. Its why Iced Tea had to include a classpath exception or Redhat and its customers couldnt use it.

Re:BSD-bad, MIT-good (4, Insightful)

femtobyte (710429) | about a year ago | (#45552739)

Right, if your code is relying on the functionality that someone else generously gave you and the whole world to freely use, then you have to play nice and pass along the same freedoms that you're enjoying to link the GPL'd code's functionality into your product.

I see you mentioned RedHat --- for a company with over a billion dollars revenue, RH doesn't seem to be suffering too badly from the inability to make money while building on GPL'd products. They seem to have found plenty of ways to add enough value to convince people to pay them for a product that you can get for free through other channels (CentOS). None of their programmers are going home unpaid because of the "eeeevil profit-killing GPL."

Re:BSD-bad, MIT-good (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45555555)

Right, if your code is relying on the functionality that someone else generously gave you and the whole world to freely use, then you have to play nice and pass along the same freedoms that you're enjoying to link the GPL'd code's functionality into your product.

Unless that functionality was licensed under BSD/MIT, in which case you don't (legally) have to.

Though a lot of folks do anyway, because it's usually easier to just contribute back then it is to maintain private patches against a public repo that's moving forward. In some ways contributing back to BSD/MIT projects show better character, since people do so even though it's not a requirement (notwithstanding the mentioned practicality).

Re:BSD-bad, MIT-good (2, Insightful)

hairyfeet (841228) | about a year ago | (#45553703)

Ooookay, then explain EXACTLY how I'm supposed to make money when somebody can give away my work for free and there ain't a damned thing I can do about it?

It is THIS, this right here that has made Liunux on the desktop a non starter, as there is ZERO way for anybody to make dime on the desktop. Just ask Canonical how much money they have lost of Shuttleworth's with pretty much zero chance of ever getting into the black. After all why would anybody give a dime for Ubuntu when they can have every. single. bit. of work canonical does for free with mint or any of the other derivatives? Not to mention the whole "busted shitter" problem where major bugs last for years because nobody is being paid to fix them.

The GPL works in servers because the money isn't in the software, its in hosting and hardware. it works in embedded because Google is able to make money from ads (and they refuse to go near GPL V3 as they lock down more and more of Android) but just as you will NEVER in a million years see a triple A video game that is GPL so too will Linux go nowhere on the desktop thanks to GPL.

Its just too bad that the community continues to hang onto a mistaken belief that because a license works in ONE place it will work in ALL places. At the end of the day the ONLY places where the GPL can work is if your business can fall under the "blessed three" model of 1.-Selling support/services, 2.- Selling hardware, 2.- The tin cup begging model. If your business can't get enough capital to function using one of those three, like videogames or desktops? Well there is a reason why Jobs took BSD and built an empire and Shuttleworth took Linux and just bled his bank account for his trouble.

Re:BSD-bad, MIT-good (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45553763)

Uhm, aren't you simply in denial of reality here?
Red Hat makes more than a billion on FOSS. Canonical is currently positive, which means gaining back what they've lost of Shuttleworth's money is simply a matter of time. Desktop Linux is constantly growing... and will do so at an accelerated rate once it becomes more relevant for gaming (Steam OS, plus an increasing number of game developers porting). And then there's business Linux, Mobile, HPC, home servers, ... many areas where it is already dominating largely because of the GPL!
Your ranting and frothing has little connection with what's actually happening out there.

Besides, I'll gladly bet you my house that we'll see a triple A video game under the GPL within my life time, much less to speak about a million years.

And with that "blessed three" model you speak of... does that mean that non-GPL software can only exist under a "blessed one" model, i.e. exchanging binaries for cash?

captcha: scholar

Re:BSD-bad, MIT-good (1)

The Snowman (116231) | about a year ago | (#45557043)

Red Hat makes more than a billion on FOSS.

And they do this by targeting corporate desktops and servers, making money on services. Did you read the post to which you are replying?

Re:BSD-bad, MIT-good (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45557315)

[...] explain EXACTLY how I'm supposed to make money when somebody can give away my work for free [...]

Red Hat makes more than a billion on FOSS.

[...] this right here that has made Liunux on the desktop a non starter [...]

Canonical is currently positive [...]

Hmm, did _you_ read the post to which you are replying?

captcha: geology

Re:BSD-bad, MIT-good (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45554295)

The GPL works in servers because the money isn't in the software, its in hosting and hardware. it works in embedded because Google is able to make money from ads (and they refuse to go near GPL V3 as they lock down more and more of Android) but just as you will NEVER in a million years see a triple A video game that is GPL so too will Linux go nowhere on the desktop thanks to GPL.

I'll just leave this here..
https://github.com/id-Software/Quake-III-Arena

Re:BSD-bad, MIT-good (1)

jones_supa (887896) | about a year ago | (#45555037)

This. id Software has proven that it's possible and that it doesn't necessarily hurt the company. You can still sell the game as the customer has to pay to get the art assets. On the other hand, you cannot immediately GPL-license your engine if you still plan to license it...

Re:BSD-bad, MIT-good (1)

jones_supa (887896) | about a year ago | (#45555047)

On the other hand, you cannot immediately GPL-license your engine if you still plan to license it...

I meant, to license it on proprietarily to be bought by other game companies.

Re:BSD-bad, MIT-good (1)

hairyfeet (841228) | about a year ago | (#45557047)

Bullshit. Your post would be true if Id gave Quake 5 as GPL right out the gate but they will NEVER EVER in a million years do that, why? Because they would lose their ass, that's why.

Giving away something you've already squeezed the last cent of profit out of is NOT "supporting the GPL", its a publicity stunt, no different than Pumpkin Studios throwing their Warzone 2100 out there after the company went tits up.

BTW did you notice how laughably pathetic the quality of anything the community made with Q3 is? Again it shows that with zero chance of profit all you will get is strictly amateur hour hobbyists. To this day all you get are badly skinned versions of the same DM/CTF Q3 Arena bullshit. The community has had it for ages and haven't even come up with a single original thought, not one.

Re:BSD-bad, MIT-good (1)

The Snowman (116231) | about a year ago | (#45557089)

The GPL works in servers because the money isn't in the software, its in hosting and hardware. it works in embedded because Google is able to make money from ads (and they refuse to go near GPL V3 as they lock down more and more of Android) but just as you will NEVER in a million years see a triple A video game that is GPL so too will Linux go nowhere on the desktop thanks to GPL.

I'll just leave this here..
https://github.com/id-Software/Quake-III-Arena

That game was open sourced after id Software made millions of dollars from it, and after their next game was released. I do believe the discussion is about releasing a new AAA game using the GPL.

Re:BSD-bad, MIT-good (1)

VortexCortex (1117377) | about a year ago | (#45555341)

Ooookay, then explain EXACTLY how I'm supposed to make money when somebody can give away my work for free and there ain't a damned thing I can do about it?

Just like a mechanic does: You want to make money. You do a bid for a prospective customer. You agree on a price. You do the work ONCE. You get paid for the work you did ONCE. The difference is that a mechanic's work benefits one car, and one driver; The whole world can benefit from your efforts if you create free software. Note that there is no coin slot on your ignition switch so that the mechanic can extract a fee for each time you benefit from their work...

Copyright creates artificial scarcity. The GPL would not be needed without copyright. GPL essentially make copyright embrace the simple nature of information: Bits are in near infinite supply. Econ:101 states that which is in infinite supply has zero price, regardless of cost to create. Selling ice to Eskimos is a laughable business plan, yet you are of the opinion that selling bits to folks with computers isn't laughable as well? You have an infinite monopoly over your work BEFORE you do it; Leverage this, not the artificial scarcity that allows "piracy" to exist.

You can't sell ice to Eskimos, but you can charge the work to build an igloo.

Re:BSD-bad, MIT-good (1)

petsounds (593538) | about a year ago | (#45558905)

Just like a mechanic does: You want to make money. You do a bid for a prospective customer. You agree on a price. You do the work ONCE. You get paid for the work you did ONCE. The difference is that a mechanic's work benefits one car, and one driver; The whole world can benefit from your efforts if you create free software. Note that there is no coin slot on your ignition switch so that the mechanic can extract a fee for each time you benefit from their work...

The only time a software developer is getting paid by a single entity for spec work is the case where a business is paying a developer for the work, and in that scenario the business certainly doesn't want their proprietary code out there for everyone to see and copy.

In most cases, a software developer spends money/time to develop a product and sell it. The cost of develop + some profit is factored into the price, based on some estimate of how many copies will sell. But under your philosophy, only one copy should be sold, which means that one person would pay for the total cost of development + profit, and then every other person on the planet could get it for free. It would be like the game X-COM being sold for $3 million, and when some chump bought the game for $3 million, then they'd release the GPL'd code to the public. The only way this setup would work is via a mechanism like Kickstarter, where the funds for the work are donated up-front so that development costs and profit are recouped before the code is delivered.

GPL - the competitor creator (1)

unixisc (2429386) | about a year ago | (#45560141)

Just like a mechanic does: You want to make money. You do a bid for a prospective customer. You agree on a price. You do the work ONCE. You get paid for the work you did ONCE. The difference is that a mechanic's work benefits one car, and one driver; The whole world can benefit from your efforts if you create free software.

You are missing his point. It being - if he sells his software to Dick, and Dick starts distributing it for free to everybody, then there are 2 suppliers of the same software in the market - him, and Dick. He sells it for, say $50, while Dick just either offers it as a free download, or sells it for $5 (including s&h). Everybody knows that it's available from both him & Dick. Who do you think they'd buy it from?

What GPL - any version - does is ensure that any software under it can practically be sold only once; after that, the first person who feels generous enough to 'help his neighbor' gets to give it away for free, essentially becoming his supplier's competitor, and putting him out of business. It's for this reason that GPL is considered anti-business. To an extent, the same is true about open source licenses like BSD, but the saving grace is that one can combine that w/ other software that has a different, maybe shared source license, and salvage potential damage.

Re:BSD-bad, MIT-good (1)

DrXym (126579) | about a year ago | (#45554951)

For the most part I agree, but the GPLv3 is positively toxic for certain kinds of deployment such as set top boxes.

Re:BSD-bad, MIT-good (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45554473)

So MacOSX can't use it hence why they use CLANG now.

Why is it that the can't? They have chosen not to. They could very well chose differently.

Re:BSD-bad, MIT-good (2)

statusbar (314703) | about a year ago | (#45552651)

I personally prefer the ISC license: http://opensource.org/licenses/ISC [opensource.org]

Specifically because it does not have the advertising clause - i.e. I do NOT want 3rd parties to be using my company name in their advertising.

*--jeffk++

Re:BSD-bad, MIT-good (2)

odie5533 (989896) | about a year ago | (#45552983)

I second the ISC license and use it whenever I'm not using the GPL. The ISC is also the shortest which means people might actually be able to read and understand it.

Re:BSD-bad, MIT-good (2)

RocketRabbit (830691) | about a year ago | (#45553131)

The "Old-style" BSD license was a problem for Stallman, but consider this: Why would anybody except a person using software that originated from Berkeley use that license? BSD type licenses for software not from Berkeley never had the Berkeley clause.

So there really is no problem at all.

Re:BSD-bad, MIT-good (1)

tlhIngan (30335) | about a year ago | (#45556099)

Please don't use the BSD license. As Stallman has explained at length, its original version had the obnoxious advertising clause that made compliance very difficult for large projects. Even though there now is the "new style BSD" license, it is easy to confuse the two and mistakenly promote the old one. The MIT/X license is equivalent to the new BSD license and does not suffer from the confusion of multiple versions, so please use it instead of the BSD license.

OTOH, that advertising clause makes it useful if you want to PREVENT GPL projects from using it.

And it's not difficult for large projects - because BSD code is everywhere. If you go to the "about" screen on large projects you may see something like "Portions (c) Regents of University of California" and other stuff in the about dialog. In fact, a LOT of them have pages of such acknowledgements. (zlib is another one).

Specifically because it does not have the advertising clause - i.e. I do NOT want 3rd parties to be using my company name in their advertising.

They're not allowed to use the name in advertising. All the "advertising" clause states is that you MUST put the fact that your company developed some parts of it somewhere - in the legal documentation, about screen, etc. And they're not allowed to use it in such a way that implies endorsement or other such thing of the product.

Specifically, this is what the 3rd clause states:

4. Neither the name of the nor the
      names of its contributors may be used to endorse or promote products
      derived from this software without specific prior written permission.

I.e., no one using BSD code can use your name for promotion or otherwise. It's why if you look at it, you'll find "Portions (c) Regents of University of California" or other message hidden away. That's all the 3rd clause states - you can't state that because you used the BSD TCP/IP stack, you can slap "University of California" all over your promotional materials.

It is this clause that makes it GPL-incompatible since it restricts further redistribution by imposing a condition.

You can mod me down or call me what you like but it is fact that if I want to buy a mac (I hate Apple but for the sake of argument) and there is a cool piece of software then I can not have it. Why? If Apple does one include statement in c++ that includes a header that is GNU then the whole thing has to be free as well which is why critics called GPL viral.

I am not a troll here. But corporations have a right to distribute software as well. Sure the code is yours and if you don't want the mean bad corp to use it then use GNU. While it is true that corporations can use GNU they can not distribute it.

So MacOSX can't use it hence why they use CLANG now.

Apple did not move to CLANG because of GPL. In fact, they were pretty happy with the GPL until the FSF released GPLv3, which changed the entire landscape. With that, Apple decided it wasn't in their best interests and developed an alternative compiler suite (because everything FSF was going GPLv3, and a lot of other OS X libraries like Samba were going GPLv3) and other things.

The last checkin by Apple to GCC was related to blocks and stuff related to Grand Central Dispatch.

Basically Apple felt the GPLv3 wasn't useful to them anymore and potentially dangerous, so they decided to excise all GPL code (because they feared other GPL works going GPLv3). This caused problems in 10.5 as Apple's SMB/CIFS library wasn't exactly the best.

And many other companies have woken up to the reality that is GPLv3 and do full audits of code and everything now. I've seen policies that say if you want to use open-source, it must be reviewed by Legal - and this applies whether the use was a tool for internal use, or to be distributed as part of a product. And there's a small set of pre-approved software available (to avoid grinding operations to a halt), but with the further acknowledgement that Apache, BSD and other permissive licenses were OK, GPLv3 is verboten (other than GCC, it was marked as "don't even bother asking - it will NOT be approved" - sure you can probably make a strong case if you must, but if there's alternatives (including own development), they're all better). GPLv2 was OK.

Re:BSD-bad, MIT-good (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45557559)

Except the MIT license has the same ambiguous naming as the BSD license. The MIT/X license doesn't even explicitly appear in the first page of Google search results. The http://choosealicense.com/ website suggests using the "MIT" license which is actually the MIT-Expat license. The MIT/X license (or possibly the X/MIT license??), according to the XFree86 project, contains the advertising clause taken from the original BSD license. According to wikipedia and others the MIT/X license (seemingly the MIT/X11 license) doesn't contain the advertising clause, but does contain the non-promotion clause of the modified BSD (aka 3 clause BSD) license. The current de-facto "MIT license" is the MIT-Expat license, which is equivalent to the BSD 2 clause license. The MIT/X11 license is equivalent to the BSD 3 clause.

If you find an MIT license in the wild, you can (maybe) figure out which license it is at https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing:MIT
and for BSD: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing:BSD

Re:Good (1)

jones_supa (887896) | about a year ago | (#45554569)

Like to see alternatives to GNU.

You probably mean GPL.

No thanks. (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45552063)

Communism by any other name is still communism. These guys are probably Obamacare programmers looking for more work.

Re:No thanks. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45553147)

Not any more, it's not. The US right wing has managed to redefine "communism" to mean "anything the Koch brothers don't like".

Plaintext? (1)

emblemparade (774653) | about a year ago | (#45554305)

Does anyone know where to find plaintext versions of the 4.0 licenses?

Re:Plaintext? (1)

jones_supa (887896) | about a year ago | (#45555063)

Sure. They can be found at http://wiki.creativecommons.org/4.0/Drafts [creativecommons.org] .

Re:Plaintext? (1)

emblemparade (774653) | about a year ago | (#45556823)

Thanks! But these are for the drafts, no? How come the final version doesn't have a plaintext file?

Re:Plaintext? (1)

jones_supa (887896) | about a year ago | (#45556899)

Good point. The final versions seem to be at http://creativecommons.org/licenses/ [creativecommons.org] (use the "View Legal Code" links).

Re:Plaintext? (1)

emblemparade (774653) | about a year ago | (#45556941)

Right: but no plaintext versions.

Re:Plaintext? (1)

jones_supa (887896) | about a year ago | (#45557003)

Sadly, no.
Check for New Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?