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 v3.0 Launched

Hemos posted more than 7 years ago | from the veresion-3-of-everything dept.

The Courts 39

An anonymous reader writes "Creative Commons announced the release of its licenses on Friday 23 Feb 2007. Changes include "Clarifications Negotiated With Debian and MIT", CC-BY-SA "compatibility structure", endorsement control, etc."

cancel ×

39 comments

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

Viva la Cuba, Ricky Martin, and Fidel - my HERO !! (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18151780)

Viva la Cuba, Ricky Martin, and Fidel - my HERO !!

Viva la Frohnz, and Jaques Cousteau - my HERO ! (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18152720)

Viva la Frohnz, and Jaques Cousteau - my HERO !!!!

Stick that in your rebreather and smoke it //

Iceweasel (0, Offtopic)

Yvanhoe (564877) | more than 7 years ago | (#18152030)

Does it mean Iceweasel will finally be renamde firefox ? Or am I completly missing something here ?

No. (4, Informative)

tepples (727027) | more than 7 years ago | (#18152128)

Does it mean Iceweasel will finally be renamde firefox ?
No. The source code for Firefox software is distributed under the Mozilla Public License and GNU licenses, not a Creative Commons license. Besides, the Creative Commons licenses are copyright licenses, and Firefox vs. Iceweasel is a trademark issue, not a copyright issue.

Re:No. (0, Offtopic)

apathy maybe (922212) | more than 7 years ago | (#18153452)

I hereby endorse this comment.

Nope, still not GNU compatible (5, Informative)

tepples (727027) | more than 7 years ago | (#18152100)

From the CC-BY 3.0 Legal Code [creativecommons.org] :

4. Restrictions. The license granted in Section 3 above is expressly made subject to and limited by the following restrictions:
a. [...] If You create an Adaptation, upon notice from any Licensor You must, to the extent practicable, remove from the Adaptation any credit as required by Section 4(b), as requested.
All six primary Creative Commons licenses contain this provision. The GNU copyleft licenses (GNU General Public License and GNU Free Documentation License) do not allow authors to require downstream users to alter or remove credits. Therefore, it appears that the Creative Commons licenses are still incompatible with GNU licenses, and works under a Creative Commons license cannot be used in works under GNU licenses such as GPL computer games and GFDL software manuals. I've explained this in more detail on my user page on Wikimedia Commons [wikimedia.org] .

Seeing that GPL get more asshole every revision, (0, Flamebait)

imsabbel (611519) | more than 7 years ago | (#18152722)

i really wonder how anybody would care about being "compatible" with it.

Re:Seeing that GPL get more asshole every revision (3, Informative)

cortana (588495) | more than 7 years ago | (#18153672)

People (e.g., Debian) who want to distribute a program that is licensed under the GPL and that uses data files (icons, music, etc) that is licensed under Creative Commons licenses care.

Re:Nope, still not GNU compatible (2, Informative)

lys1123 (461567) | more than 7 years ago | (#18152768)

So would you be in favor of a license more in line with GNU copyleft ideas, like maybe the Free Artist Community License [pbwiki.com] ?

Re:Nope, still not GNU compatible (1)

Perey (818567) | more than 7 years ago | (#18152940)

Well, that is a problem, but overall I'm more concerned with whether they've addressed Debian's criticisms [debian.org] . The GNU criticisms [gnu.org] are basically, 'People refer to them vaguely, and you can't use them with our licenses.' The latter is a considerable practical problem, given the mass of GPL material out there. But the issues raised in the Debian criticism are much more serious, as far as I'm concerned. They deal in detail with its vaguenesses, its difficult points, and essentially with how well it can really be used and how free it truly is.

I'm not really sure whether the changes amount to addressing all these issues (where 'addressing' may just mean 'objection noted, but no change'). A diff would be helpful...

Evan Prodromou mentioned my beef (1)

tepples (727027) | more than 7 years ago | (#18159296)

Well, that is a problem, but overall I'm more concerned with whether they've addressed Debian's criticisms [debian.org]
Then they haven't. The issue I mention is described under the header "Removing References" in the Debian page. The change of "reference" to "credit" in 2.5 clarified this somewhat, but the core of the problem remains:

an author who made a novel available under an Attribution 2.0 license could give notice to disallow an annotated version that mentions the author by name or simply as "the author".

why should it be GNU compatible? (3, Insightful)

yankpop (931224) | more than 7 years ago | (#18152950)

So what? If they were completely compatible then I'd wonder what was the point of making up a new license at all. They don't do the same thing. The GPL is intended for use with software, Creative Commons adapts the idea of copyleft to apply to more traditional publishing.

I think the point is that there are different needs for different sorts of publishing. If you are working on code and its documentation, GPL is the way to go. Probably also a good choice for textbooks. More personalized work, like fiction, opinion pieces, even some technical discussions, need to be protected from unacknowledged alteration, so verbatim copying, or enforced modification of credits is entirely appropriate.

The concept of Free Software as embodied by the GPL does not generalize well beyond the confines of software, at least not without the sorts of modifications provided by Creative Commons licenses.

yp.

Re:why should it be GNU compatible? (1)

cortana (588495) | more than 7 years ago | (#18153702)

You make a lot of assertions, but you don't back them up. What is the real difference between software code and music/artwork/fiction text?

Re:why should it be GNU compatible? (1)

cortana (588495) | more than 7 years ago | (#18153762)

Whoops, hit reply too soon. To continue... ... it is the lack of a satisfactory answer to that question that leaves me with the opinion that, even though Debian's stance on the Creative Commons licenses is really annoying, they are right damnit.

Re:why should it be GNU compatible? (1)

schon (31600) | more than 7 years ago | (#18162472)

Perhaps he felt that the assertions were self-evident. After all, the people who drafted the GPL [fsf.org] felt there was enough of a difference that they drafted the GNU Free Documentation License. [gnu.org]

Re:why should it be GNU compatible? (1)

ZachPruckowski (918562) | more than 7 years ago | (#18153936)

CC-by-SA and GFDL are very similar licenses, but because you can't combine them, or move content from one of them to the other, they create a divide in the free-content world, since a site under a CC licenses can't take GFDL stuff and vice-versa. This even has negative repercussions for Wikimedia sites - Wikitravel and Wikipedia are under the same stewardship, but can't share content, because they're under different licenses.

Creative Commons == GPL (Sometimes) (3, Informative)

ubuwalker31 (1009137) | more than 7 years ago | (#18153826)

I think the most important development is that the GPL and the LGPL are now official Creative Commons Licenses: http://creativecommons.org/license/cc-gpl?lang=en and http://creativecommons.org/license/cc-lgpl?lang=en .

I also like the "human readable" version of the licenses which list out the four essential software freedoms in a "deed" format: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/GPL/2.0/

I think that there are more people who are familiar with the CC licensing system, than with the GPL, so this should really be helpful.

Of course, there is an issue as to whether the other CC licenses are compatible with the GPL/CC-GPL or with debian, etc. Thats where the debate is too.

Re:Nope, still not GNU compatible (1)

MarkWatson (189759) | more than 7 years ago | (#18154240)

I think that the two licenses are for very different purposes. Personally, I use the GPL for my open source projects and I use CC for my open content writing projects. Sharing software and sharing writing are different, at least for me, so I prefer different licenses.

I want people to be able to modify my software and reuse it as they need to (I also offer more commercial friendly licensing when people ask for it). On the other hand, I don't want people to be able to modify my free web books (except for emailing me corrections and suggestions) so I choose the appropriate CC license for that.

I am happy with both licenses :-)

Software, writing, what is difference? (1)

tepples (727027) | more than 7 years ago | (#18159498)

Sharing software and sharing writing are different, at least for me, so I prefer different licenses.
Is a help file considered software or writing? If a program reads localized user interface messages from a data file using something like gettext [wikipedia.org] , is the data file considered software or writing? Nathanael Nerode recommends [rr.com] distributing a program's manual under the same license as the program itself.

On the other hand, I don't want people to be able to modify my free web books (except for emailing me corrections and suggestions) so I choose the appropriate CC license for that.
Then you have the same stance on manuals that Daniel J Bernstein has on software. The same mentality produced the QPL and the Pine license, which have problems listed in their entries on the GNU project's license list [gnu.org] . Free software needs free manuals [gnu.org] . If you modify a program and change how it interacts with other programs or with the user, the manual needs to be modified to correctly describe the changed behaviors. Why should corrections to the manual for every experimental fork of your program have to go through you, when you are a bottleneck whose capacity for producing revisions is limited and who will eventually become no longer able to produce revisions at all?

Re:Software, writing, what is difference? (1)

hawaiian717 (559933) | more than 7 years ago | (#18163414)

I think you assume that the grandparent poster puts the manuals for his GPL'd software under a restrictive CC license. That's not the conclusion I drew reading it. I would agree with you that it makes sense to put documentation under the same license as the software.

Taking a quick look at his site, it looks like the open content books are more along the lines of what you'd find in the computer section of a bookstore. Since these aren't directly tied to an open source software product, I think its perfectly reasonable that he use a restrictive license.

What is the manual (1)

tepples (727027) | more than 7 years ago | (#18166796)

Taking a quick look at his site, it looks like the open content books are more along the lines of what you'd find in the computer section of a bookstore.

A lot of books that I find in the computer section of a Barnes & Noble store describe some computer program. In a sense, they are third-party manuals. In particular, two of Mark Watson's web books are a manual for Sun's J2SE SDK and a manual for Common Lisp. (For this discussion, I'm ignoring the AI book and the fiction.) What happens once a program's maintainer releases a new version of the program with changes that make parts of the book no longer relevant, and the author cannot be contacted? Try using the second half of a Windows 98/Me book on a PC using Windows XP software to see what I mean. In the free world, why should one have to start from scratch when describing an improved program? Worse, even if one does start from scratch, why should one have to risk subconscious copying lawsuits?

It's not that I'm ungrateful. Due to my condition, my mind understands concepts by understanding their boundaries, and I am exploring the boundaries of the nd-nc mentality.

CC is 'Open Source' not FSF (3, Interesting)

Jack Action (761544) | more than 7 years ago | (#18156058)

In recent years, Creative Commons has gone in an 'Open Source' direction, far from the principles of the Free Software Foundation that CC founder Lawrence Lessig said inspired his movement in the first place (cue howling anti-RMS Slashdotters).

In fact, in the recent GPLv3 furor, Lessig came down [lessig.org] on the side of Linus Torvalds, against Richard Stallman. This is when I first began questioning the value of supporting CC by using one of their licenses.

It seems, like others in the 'Open Source' movement, CC has mades its compromises and now plays nicely with those who want to make a ton of money off of user generated content (MySpace, Rupert Murdoch anyone?), without necessarily preserving the rights of users.

CC now resides in the ESR category.

Something isn't right here... (-1, Flamebait)

core_dump_0 (317484) | more than 7 years ago | (#18152346)

BY-SA -- Compatibility Structure Now Included

The CC BY-SA 3.0 licenses will now include the ability for derivatives to be relicensed under a "Creative Commons Compatible License," which will be listed here. This structure realizes CC's long-held objective of ensuring that there are no legal barriers to people being able to remix creativity in the way that flexible licenses are intended to enable. More information about this is provided here.
Why should I trust them? This sounds a lot like the FSF automatically updating the licenses of everyone's software. Except that CC is less zealot-like and therefore less trustworthy than the FSF. I'm not updating MY BY-SA licensed works.

Re:Something isn't right here... (1)

omeg (907329) | more than 7 years ago | (#18152706)

I seriously do not understand exactly what that passage you quoted says. I've read it through a few times, but it's so incredibly soaked in marketing speak that the essence of the information actually seems hidden. "Remix creativity in the way that flexible licenses are intended to enable"?

Correct me if I'm wrong about this. Isn't it so that technically, while it is possible to say that if license A allows for uses B and C, one can use the work in those ways, it is not possible to say that if license A is fully compatible with license B, the a work licensed under license A is also licensed under license B. This is simply impossible, even if license B is very highly similar to license A. Not unless someone grabs the work, makes a derivative, and then decides to release it under the fully compatible license B.

To be honest, that sounds reasonable to me, if it is what I think it's like.

Re:Something isn't right here... (1)

core_dump_0 (317484) | more than 7 years ago | (#18160944)

Not unless someone grabs the work, makes a derivative, and then decides to release it under the fully compatible license B.
This is exactly what I'm trying to avoid by not upgrading my works to CC BY-SA 3.0. You never know what CC will approve in the future, so the agreement is dangerous. The GPL is just as dangerous, but the GPL is run by the FSF, who is not likely to give up their extreme left-anarchist viewpoints anytime soon. I trust the FSF more than I trust CC, though automatic license updates of most GPL software and "compatible licenses" for derivatives are both dangerous.

I don't know why my initial comment was moderated -1 "flamebait," since I wasn't trying to flame anyone. Perhaps I was a little too angry this morning over the new licensing, but I was never trying to flame anyone.

Comments on public domain and noncommercial (2, Insightful)

ortholattice (175065) | more than 7 years ago | (#18152758)

I am glad to see the have included public domain as a prominent choice. It was there before, but somewhat buried and hard to find - it you used their standard picker, it wouldn't come up at all. I wrote them about this years ago, and (whether in response to my complaint or not) it's good to see they've finally done something about it.

Public domain is a greatly underrated and overlooked choice. It can make life vastly easier for users by not having to worry about tracking credits for every little nitpicking minutiae, but instead depends on commonsense ethics to make acknowledgments where appropriate, without having to worry about violating the fine print of some legal copyright license. For minor stuff where suing would be silly even if someone plagiarized it - from a simple utility icon to this very post you're reading - I think public domain release makes a lot of sense for those willing to do it but who are now simply unaware of the possibility.

On the other hand, they still haven't clarified the fine legal points of exactly what "commercial use" means. As I've posted [slashdot.org] here before, almost anything can be interpreted as "commercial use" if someone is so inclined. IMO almost any use of works under a noncommecial-only license is a risk not worth taking. In addition, they can't be incorporated into GPL software, so for open-source development "noncommercial-only" works are completely worthless.

Re:Comments on public domain and noncommercial (1)

apathy maybe (922212) | more than 7 years ago | (#18153538)

If you do care about your work being shared with others, then public domain is not really an option. Because quite simply, anyone can come and take that open work and close it again. The page on GNU philosophy at www.gnu.org has more information about this problem.

Personally, if I am happy with others using my work, I release it under a simple licence that says something like: Use as you like, but then if you do use, it make sure any copies or derivatives are, 1, under this same licence, and 2 that everybody else gets the same rights that I give you.

This enables attribution if they want (if it is is required, such as in an academic scenario), and I don't worry any more. It means that there is slightly more chance that they will make changes available, because they legally have to, but I'm not about to hunt them down.

Re:Comments on public domain and noncommercial (1)

Raenex (947668) | more than 7 years ago | (#18187388)

If you do care about your work being shared with others, then public domain is not really an option. Because quite simply, anyone can come and take that open work and close it again.

Public domain is a valid option. Sure somebody can close a derivation of it, but then the open version still remains. There's lots of BSD-style software that succeeds in the open even though closed versions exist. It's up to each author to decide the issues for themselves. LGPL is another option, which can serve as a nice middle ground between GPL and BSD/public domain.

Personally, if I am happy with others using my work, I release it under a simple licence that says something like: Use as you like, but then if you do use, it make sure any copies or derivatives are, 1, under this same licence, and 2 that everybody else gets the same rights that I give you.

Err, then why not just use the GPL or LGPL? By creating your "simple" license you have now made your code incompatible with other free software.

Re:Comments on public domain and noncommercial (1)

1110110001 (569602) | more than 7 years ago | (#18165268)

The problem with public domain is it's just not possible in some countries. I.e. in Austria or Germany you can't give up your copyright - or only with you death and 70 additional years. But then it's automatically public domain.

Re:Comments on public domain and noncommercial (1)

Raenex (947668) | more than 7 years ago | (#18187278)

I am glad to see the have included public domain as a prominent choice.

I like the public domain choice too, but I find their version [creativecommons.org] way too wordy. Forget the lawyer-ese, I want a license that I can glance and nod my head to. I like this version [ezinearticles.com] (originating from Wikipedia [wikipedia.org] ?).

bit3h (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18153048)

is dying.ThiFngs [goat.cx]

I am just now changing over to the new licenses (2, Interesting)

MarkWatson (189759) | more than 7 years ago | (#18153926)

I use CC licenses for my Java AI and Common Lisp primer "free web books" and was the 'featured commoner' a few years ago.

I am pleased that CC is not standing still on licenses. Although I have written 14 published books, there are a few strong reasons why I am transitioning to CC open content authoring; the the primary reason is that I tend to be interested in niche technical areas and conventional publishers in the past have pressured me to tailor my works to a larger market. I am in the slow process of "dual publishing" my CC licensed content: free PD downloads and lulu.com instant print books for a fee for the occasional reader who wants a physical book.

My original motive for doing CC open content was simply that I got tired of having teachers, etc. ask if they good copy a chapter or two of my published books for their students - and my having to turn down their requests because my publishers own my material. Other reasons for CC based open content are a wider readership and thus more frequent interesting connections with my readers.

Really, the only advantage of using publishers is making money :-)

Re:I am just now changing over to the new licenses (1)

MarkWatson (189759) | more than 7 years ago | (#18154686)

a typo: I meant: "free PDF downloads"

Flawed licenses: Not free content (0, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18153928)

It's bad enough that CC promotes the non-free -NC/-ND license terms, with 3.0 they have made one important change that makes the license non-free in most of the world.

Except as otherwise agreed in writing by the Licensor or as may be otherwise permitted by applicable law, if You Reproduce, Distribute or Publicly Perform the Work either by itself or as part of any Adaptations or Collections, You must not distort, mutilate, modify or take other derogatory action in relation to the Work which would be prejudicial to the Original Author's honor or reputation.


What they were attempting to do is harmonize the rules around the world. Some nations (like France and Japan) strongly enforce a class of rights called "moral rights". These rights are held by the author of a work, are non-transferable, and never expire. They allow the author to demand attribution and prevent his work from being mutilated.

Rather than releasing people from moral rights to the greatest extent possible, CC decided to impose these moral rights restrictions on the entire world. Worse, the terminology is hamfisted and more restrictive than the moral rights laws almost anywhere. As a result you must comply with this vague term as well as the applicable moral rights laws.

The net effect is that anyone who has a copyright interest in a CC-By-* work now has a powerful tool built out of copyright law to attack anyone who modifies their work in a way which they disapprove, or anyone who redistributes their work in the process of criticizing. This discriminates against some classes of use and is not acceptable in a free license. CC already offers -ND terms for authors who are concerned that their works will be modified.

Slander, misrepresentation, and other forms of fraud are bad but there are laws in every civilized nation to prevent these things. We do not need or want additional restrictions for this purpose imposed in a license which purports to be intended for free content. If they were concerned about the interpretation and validity of the license in places like France they would have been better off including a clarification which stated that the authors intent is to allow derivative works to the greatest extent possible, but that the license doesn't wave your other obligations under the law such as restrictions involving personality rights, trademark, patent, slander, etc.

If you're a newbie to slashdot and not down with the groupthink yet, you might want to find out more about what people expect in a free content license. Check out http://freedomdefined.org/Definition [freedomdefined.org]

Re:Flawed licenses: Not free content (1)

Raenex (947668) | more than 7 years ago | (#18187780)

The parent's comment deserved consideration, but somebody modded it down instead of replying with a counter-argument:

[..]
Rather than releasing people from moral rights to the greatest extent possible, CC decided to impose these moral rights restrictions on the entire world. Worse, the terminology is hamfisted and more restrictive than the moral rights laws almost anywhere. As a result you must comply with this vague term as well as the applicable moral rights laws.

Still looking... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18155728)

I'm still looking for an "Encourage Linux" license that basically says you can use it for free on a Linux box, but you gotta pay me for use on a Windows system. ;-)

Actually, it is good to see Creative Commons keeping up with the licenses. I wouldn't be mad if they ventured out into a new hybrid software license.

Creative Commons is a disaster. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18161788)

Creative Commons is a disaster.

Jonathan Coulton's songs are released under CC-NC-BY-SA 2.5. That means I can only use them in works that are also CC-NC-BY-SA 2.5. So if someone on Jamendo (or whatever) releases a song under CC-BY-SA 2.5, I can't make a mashup of them with either license. I can't make a movie, under any license, that contains both songs. That "open movie" Elephants Dream that was all over digg/slashdot was released under CC-BY, but its soundtrack was released under CC-NC-ND, so I can't mix the existing soundtrack with Coulton's or whoever's music.

In fact, this whole fad of having hundreds of different "licenses" from every company with slightly different wording is completely ruining the spirit of freedom and the internet. Wikipedia is released under the GFDL. I can't print out an article and distribute it without attaching the entire text of the GFDL. That's a free open-content encyclopedia? Same with Wikibooks. Meanwhile, MIT's OpenCourseWare is released under CC-BY-NC-SA 2.5, so I can't combine a Wikipedia article with an MIT "open course". I can't include pictures from DeviantArt or Flickr if they're released under any other license.

The whole thing is so crazy and short-sighted.

We only need three licenses, and they are completely compatible in one direction:

  1. a public domain license, saying that you can do whatever you want with it;
  2. the BSD (a.k.a. MIT) license, which requires attribution to the original authors, but is otherwise free;
  3. and the GPL, the share-alike license which allows for commercial use (but prevents you from getting screwed, by forcing commercial sellers to also offer a free version).

Before you ask what the hell I'm talking about: yes, you can release art [gnu.org] (books, pictures, or anything else) under the GPL (and BSD, obviously). And you should choose that over any Creative Commons licenses.

Already so much content exists under the GPL that it's crazy to prevent your "open content" from being used in it.

Re:Creative Commons is a disaster. (1)

Raenex (947668) | more than 7 years ago | (#18187958)

The whole thing [proliferating licenses] is so crazy and short-sighted.

I agree.

We only need three licenses, and they are completely compatible in one direction: 1. a public domain license, saying that you can do whatever you want with it;

Agree. I like this version [ezinearticles.com] , as it's short and sweet.

2. the BSD (a.k.a. MIT) license, which requires attribution to the original authors, but is otherwise free;

I disagree. BSD can go away. Use a public domain license. If you want credit, just make sure you can prove that you wrote it first; you'd need this proof anyways if you wanted to enforce BSD.

For a #2 license, I'd say LGPL is more meaningful than BSD. It lets you use code in commercial projects without becoming GPL, but you have to release your changes to any LGPL code (what's yours is yours, but if you change *my* work, share alike). It's a nice middle ground between public domain and GPL.

3. and the GPL
Err, disagree. I don't like its sticky/viral nature. I think the LGPL offers all the advantages of the GPL without trying to take over the world.
Check for New Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>