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 CC+ License

ScuttleMonkey posted more than 5 years ago | from the all-about-just-gettin-paid dept.

Businesses 67

E1ven writes "Creative Commons has this week released their CC+ protocol, which provides a way for authors to allow other people to commercially reuse their work, and give them a pre-negotiated fee or percentage. It makes it easy for people to release the Material under CC-No-Commercial, and then have a way to charge for commercial use if companies are interested."

cancel ×

67 comments

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

In other news (2, Funny)

niceone (992278) | more than 5 years ago | (#21756884)

Microsoft release the CC#.NET license which makes it impossible for people to release under the CC-No-Commercial license.

Re:In other news (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#21757120)

You should try this license... [tinyurl.com]

Fr0s71 P!57 (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#21756904)

Commie bches

Did read that right... (1)

creimer (824291) | more than 5 years ago | (#21756970)

Creative Commons Launches C++ License... Do we really need another version of C++? :P

Re:Did read that right... (1)

QRDeNameland (873957) | more than 5 years ago | (#21757060)

Actually, there is a dialect of C++ called CC++ [acm.org] . I remember stumbling across it on the web 10 years ago or so...looks like it hasn't gone too far since then.

Re:Did read that right... (1)

creimer (824291) | more than 5 years ago | (#21757452)

I thought someone was being lazy on coming up with a decent acronyms only to find out that it's a lame acronym from the past. How sad... ;)

So... (4, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#21756978)

So I could CC+ license my C++ code? What if it was something for a class and I'd only gotten a C- on it? so GCC is GPL, is GGPL now CC+ licensed? I'm confused.

That's smart... (4, Insightful)

SerpentMage (13390) | more than 5 years ago | (#21757002)

Finally a smart license... Open Source, but if you want binary or commercial, here are my terms... That lets the developer play nice with Open Source, but gives those that don't want to be nice to Open Source an avenue to buy, thus letting the developer playing nicer with Open Source...

Re:That's smart... (1)

LiquidFire_HK (952632) | more than 5 years ago | (#21757160)

Sounds like the Qt license. It's GPL, but if you want to use it in a commercial product you can license it for money. I've always wondered why such an approach is so underused, as it combines the best of both worlds (i.e., the freedom of OSS and the profit of commercial products).

Re:That's smart... (1)

zotz (3951) | more than 5 years ago | (#21757924)

"I've always wondered why such an approach is so underused, as it combines the best of both worlds"

As a first guess, I think it might be that to fairly take advantage of community leverage, would result in a very complicated setup.

Anyone have any ideas on how to put a simple system together to handle such a thing?

all the best,

drew

Re:That's smart... (2, Interesting)

AvitarX (172628) | more than 6 years ago | (#21759208)

Easy.

1)Come up with the terms of your non-conforming (to the GPL) distribution of product.
2)name your license (I shall choose "QHNDASPL")
3)QHNDASPL states "you may use either GPL, terms from 1, or QHNDASPL to redistribute"
4)Only accept submissions with the QHNDASPL license

This will leverage the many eyes, theoretically, and allow you to use any patches submitted.

You would not be able to use pure GPL code and leverage what already exists (as GPL), but you could use BSD code and accept patches (if that is what you meant by leverage).

This is similar to a lot of dual licenses that already exist, except many projects want you to assign ownership to submit. This is to make future license changes easier (see the difficulty getting Mozilla to GPL, or if it was wanted to ever get Linux to the standard GPL (not the GPL2 only it currently is).

Re:That's smart... (3, Informative)

novakyu (636495) | more than 6 years ago | (#21760574)

Perhaps you should check the definition of free software [gnu.org] , or the Debian Free Software Guideline [debian.org] (which is the basis of the Open Source Definition).

Any license that does not grant free redistribution (not free as in beer, free as in freedom---as in that the re-distributor is free to charge money for the service, if someone would pay) is definitely not free, and most likely not open source.

I don't know why people get these wrong impressions that "free software" == "anti-commercial", but nothing could be further from the truth. Free software is just about as Laissez-Faire, free, capitalistic economic system as you can possibly get (free from government-granted monopolies, etc.). Licenses that "play nice" with communities by "graciously" granting non-commercial uses is definitely better than completely proprietary licenses (or a lack of one), but it's only halfway there since any such license still restricts your freedom in ways that are not acceptable.

If you aren't totally convinced still why these "non-commercial only" licenses are wrong, here's a very simple reason why: Those licenses are GPL-incompatible, since GPL does not allow addition of restrictions with small exceptions, and any project or software using those restrictive licenses is excluding a lot of code out there that is already released under GPL.

Re:That's smart... (2, Informative)

LiquidFire_HK (952632) | more than 6 years ago | (#21768690)

I am not talking about a license that disallows commercial use. As I said, Qt is licensed under the GPL. However, many commercial products are not GPL, and using Qt in them would thus not be an option. So, not as a restriction but as an additional option that you would not have if it was just the GPL, you can license Qt for use in non-GPL projects.

Qt is dual licensed. It's not a modified version of the GPL. It is free software, because it's GPL. In fact, it's, in a way, freer than GPL software, because you can use it in non-GPL projects.

(And of course I'm only using Qt as an example. I'm sure there are other similarly-licensed products.)

Re:That's smart... (1)

novakyu (636495) | more than 6 years ago | (#21774948)

Then you should have said "GPL-incompatible" or "non-free" projects ('though GPL-incompatible doesn't mean non-free, as there are many recognized free licenses that are GPL-incompatible), not "commercial". There are plenty of commercial projects (e.g. RedHat, among big ones, and all the embedded devices using BusyBox) that are GPL.

And I would have to take exception to your claim that dual-licensed projects are somehow freer than GPL, unless it's dual-licensed to accommodate two free software licenses that happen to be incompatible with each other.

While I can't claim enough moral superiority to judge programmers who license out their work under proprietary, non-free agreements, their acts do work to reduce everyone's freedom (mainly by supporting a non-free project/application). If this is too confusing for you, here's an oversimplified analogy to consider: if there was a country whose laws allowed slavery, are the laws of that country freer than that of U.S., which prohibits slavery?

If your answer is yes, well, then you and I disagree on the fundamentals and the best thing to do would be to agree to disagree. If your answer is no, then licensing out programs under non-free agreements is also not as free as insisting that all uses of the program remain free.

The most free condition in any situation is where all the freedom except the freedom to restrict others' freedom is allowed. When the freedom to restrict others' freedom (like ... the "freedom to own and trade slaves") is allowed, then that is not as free as when that particular freedom is prohibited.

Re:That's smart... (1)

skeeto (1138903) | more than 6 years ago | (#21761936)

It's GPL, but if you want to use it in a commercial product you can license it for money.

The GPL is precisely why you can use it in a commercial product and make money. The GPL places no restrictions on making money. I could legally sell you that GNU/Linux distribution CD I downloaded off a torrent for a million dollars, if you would only agree to pay that much.

Re:That's smart... (2, Insightful)

gnuman99 (746007) | more than 5 years ago | (#21757242)

Bull. Sorry. There was *always* a way for OSS copyright holders to relicense under proprietary licenses. There are *many* examples of GPL projects that have a commercial side. For very easy examples see MySQL and Trolltech's Qt.

Or see the stdc++ library in the GNU GCC toolchain. It is listed under GPL but with the exemption that any software linked to it doesn't imply that it must be GPL as well.

The addition to the CC license is not even worthy of a mention as any copyright holder could do what this license implies at any given time.

Re:That's smart... (2, Insightful)

QuantumG (50515) | more than 5 years ago | (#21757290)

The point is the "prearrangement" I believe. So you don't have to go get permission to use the work commercially, you just have to make sure you send the checks.

Re:That's smart... (4, Insightful)

Niten (201835) | more than 5 years ago | (#21757740)

I think you're entirely missing the point here. Sure we've always been free to dual-license things, but many people just aren't good at writing copyright notices and the like. This essentially provides content providers and potential licensers with a consistent user interface within which to operate.

Imagine that a publisher sees a really insightful code example in a blog entry on Erlang, which he thinks would make an excellent addition to an upcoming book. But the blog's author hasn't made clear whether this work can somehow be licensed for commercial use; or even if he has, the publisher might be having a hard time parsing the author's legalese. The publisher very well might just give up on it rather than go through the effort of contacting and negotiating with the author, and in the end both the publisher and the author lose out. On the other hand, if the author can just put a Creative Commons CC+ button on the page, the publisher can see it immediately and think: "I've seen this before and I know what it means. This work can be licensed, I can click here to find out what it will cost, etc."

This protocol continues Creative Commons' legacy of making public licensing accessible to the common man. And I think it's an excellent idea.

Re:That's smart... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21775378)

Great summary; thanks for the comment.

Re:That's smart... (2, Informative)

zotz (3951) | more than 5 years ago | (#21757888)

"Finally a smart license... Open Source, but if you want binary or commercial, here are my terms... That lets the developer play nice with Open Source, but gives those that don't want to be nice to Open Source an avenue to buy, thus letting the developer playing nicer with Open Source..."

That's not what this is. It could sort of become that, but it is not.

First, CC licenses are not recommended for code. I think the still recommend the GPL for that.

Second, I think this is only for their licenses with NC terms, so it is definitely not akin to Free or Open Source Software.

If they make the same deal for their BY-SA license, that would be closer to what you speak of, but just not recommended for software. I for one, hope they do this with BY-SA.

all the best,

drew

Re:That's smart... (1)

skeeto (1138903) | more than 6 years ago | (#21761952)

Finally a smart license... Open Source

No it's not. Not even close.

Re:That's smart... (1)

marcosdumay (620877) | more than 6 years ago | (#21763062)

It is not Open Source. Neither is CC-No-Commercial.

SLASHDOT SUX0RZ (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#21757010)

_0_
\''\
'=o='
.|!|
.| |
click here! at least its not myminicity! [goatse.ch]

Re:SLASHDOT SUX0RZ (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#21757062)

Thats funny..... but at least this isn't goatse [tinyurl.com]

Re:SLASHDOT SUX0RZ (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#21757084)

What in Satan's glorious name is that? That was disgusting!

Re:SLASHDOT SUX0RZ (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#21757364)

You're new here, aren't you?

Re:SLASHDOT SUX0RZ (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#21757696)

Duh! That was the Goatse dude. Welcome to the internet. Try not to click on any links pointing to a "tubgirl" or a "penisbird" while you're here.

SWEET! (1)

pkadd (1203286) | more than 5 years ago | (#21757024)

If this is what i think it is, then it's exactly what i need, since i don't have the law-background needed to write a lisence myself.

Re:SWEET! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21763910)

to write a lisence myself

Apparently you can't even write this post yourself. The word is license.

Couldn't you (2, Insightful)

Kamineko (851857) | more than 5 years ago | (#21757104)

Couldn't you just license your work under CC-*, and then license out commercial licenses anyway, given that you're the copyright holder?

Re:Couldn't you (1)

notthe9 (800486) | more than 5 years ago | (#21757176)

Of course you could. I think this just makes it easier to do that.

Re:Couldn't you (1)

SamP2 (1097897) | more than 5 years ago | (#21757190)

Couldn't you just license your work under CC-*, and then license out commercial licenses anyway, given that you're the copyright holder?
That license addresses exactly what you said :-/ (highlighted in bold). It's useful to be combined with CC-NC, and does nothing more than lay out the terms of what you have to do to obtain a commercial license. BTW, waiting for all the Stallmanians to start flaming about how the license (together with CC-NC) is not "free" and thus 3v1l!!!1111.

Copyleft PLUS non-free license = still Free (1)

tepples (727027) | more than 5 years ago | (#21757474)

BTW, waiting for all the Stallmanians to start flaming about how the license (together with CC-NC) is not "free" and thus 3v1l!!!1111.
From the article:

With CC+, the license can also provide a link to secure rights beyond noncommercial rights -- most obviously commercial rights, but also services of use even when commercial use is permitted, such as warranty, ability to use without attribution, or even access to performance or physical media.
I could foresee combining a copyleft (such as CC-BY-SA-* or GNU GPL) with some other license in this way.

CC+ is dual licensing (2, Informative)

tepples (727027) | more than 5 years ago | (#21757220)

Couldn't you just license your work under CC-*, and then license out commercial licenses anyway, given that you're the copyright holder?
That's exactly what this is. You license a program under GNU GPL or any other work under CC-BY-*-NC or CC-BY-SA, and then you give alternate permission for other uses that do not conform. CC+ is just a uniform way to express such a dual license.

Re:CC+ is dual licensing (1)

ShieldW0lf (601553) | more than 5 years ago | (#21757604)

This could be VERY useful to my new project. But the thing's slashdotted.

Anyone who was able to read the article able to say if there was anything in there about how they will handle limitations of the offering? If someone wants to raise or lower or otherwise alter the terms under which they will allow commercial use, are there provisions to supersede prior statements, or to limit how long the commercial offering remains legally binding?

Typically, you'd want a price quote to be a legally binding offering only if the recipient concludes a deal within a certain timeframe. Can this license do that?

Re:CC+ is dual licensing (1)

ShieldW0lf (601553) | more than 5 years ago | (#21757646)

If someone who can reach the site wants to Karma Whore and paste the whole article in here somewhere, that would probably actually be legal in this case. Hint hint.

Re:CC+ is dual licensing (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21762068)

But it's no fun if it's actually legal.

Re:Couldn't you (1)

Kjella (173770) | more than 6 years ago | (#21758736)

Obviously. I think you've missed the point of the CC licenses, and so has RMS when he says that combined they represent nothing. They represent standard licensing terms, instead of everyone and their mother writing their own "MySpecialLicense 1.0" you select some key features and get a standard boilerplate text. Potential recipients don't need to read the whole license every time to figure out if they are compatible, it's enough to analyze the license once. It lowers transaction costs all around and while it doesn't serve any specific goal it's a win-win for everyone.

If CC was in the software business, they wouldn't create one license. They'd create boilerplate BSD, LGPL, GPL, freeware, shareware, payware licenses and so on. Why? Because having a million different licenses is meaningless, one doesn't fit all but you can draw the big lines and almost everyone will fall into one of those boxes. Particularly if it required explicit declarations from the software producer like "this product does not phone home" or "this product does not display ads" in order to use it legally.

Complaints from Capitalists in... (1)

eno2001 (527078) | more than 5 years ago | (#21757122)

five, four, three, two, one.

Sure, I've heard about this (5, Funny)

Chairboy (88841) | more than 5 years ago | (#21757180)

It's like the original Creative Commons license, except with pointers.

Re:Sure, I've heard about this (1)

filbranden (1168407) | more than 5 years ago | (#21758644)

It's like the original Creative Commons license, except with pointers.
It's not pointers... In fact, the difference is that CC+ is object-oriented.

Re:Sure, I've heard about this (1)

internic (453511) | more than 6 years ago | (#21759296)

Ok, I don't get how the parent is only modded +1 while the GP is +5. The parent is actually clever.

Re:Sure, I've heard about this (1)

Tokimasa (1011677) | more than 6 years ago | (#21766244)

But cleverness buys you nothing.

Good. (1)

cromar (1103585) | more than 5 years ago | (#21757196)

I'm all for the CC people. Good work, I say. I like that they are targeting people who are not totally into viral free-as-in-speech licensing. (Me, I'll go with GPLv3 or PD if I ever get around to coding something on my own time. Definitely would go with CC or CC+ or possibly PD if I ever get around to finishing some music ;) It's weird that they are calling it a protocol, though. Maybe I am missing something, but it's just a license, right? I noticed they provide some XML markup to define the terms of your CC+ stuff, but that's not really a protocol...

Cookbook like examples please? (2, Interesting)

SockPuppet_9_5 (645235) | more than 5 years ago | (#21757200)

Great, but... If I were to tell this to someone, is there a real world money example(s) to illustrate this procedure?

Say, the item I use is 1/12th the amount of major imagery in a product.
Where's the breakover for fees if:

1)A not intended for profit item that somehow accidentally earns a few hundred bucks
2)Part of a presentation in a business that I would normally pay between $5 and $200 (at iStockPhoto for example) but otherwise never sees the light of day
3)Part of a menu at a restaurant
4)Part of a large ad campaign.

Feel free to give a wide range of examples, or link to ones similar to these suggested ones.

If I'm to convince others to want to use images with this new label, I'd like to know how to explain this to potential clients.

Re:Cookbook like examples please? (4, Informative)

boyko.at.netqos (1024767) | more than 5 years ago | (#21757920)

Actually, here's a real-world example (and I was praying for something like this...)

I'm making a documentary that I may as well plug now, www.followingalexiswest.com. (In fact, I'm making this post from LAX, having just returned from on-location filming.)

Now, in any documentary, you typically get about 20-25:1 shooting ratio. What that means is that for every hour of actual documentary, you've filmed about 20-25 hours of raw footage. In my case, much of that is interviews - educational, important interviews.

That would normally end up on the cutting-room floor - but there's so much educational, important information there. Once I get the stuff digitized, I'm taking a copy of all the raw footage and giving it to the New Zealand Film Archive, and uploading it online on Google Video. And I want people to use this raw footage in their own documentary projects - especially if they're students.

But there are still "commercial" uses - indie documentarians like me - who could also use the footage. I don't want them to take it without negotiating a fair price, but I do want to let them know that it's within the realm of possibility to licence the footage without breaking the bank.

Now, I could release it under a CC licence and sell it to commercial interests, but a CC+ licence makes it explicit that I'm looking to make money - but if you just want to muck around with it for a student project, you'll get no hassle.

Re:Cookbook like examples please? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#21758100)

Interesting example! Wish I had mod points for you.

Speaking of (1)

nrgy (835451) | more than 5 years ago | (#21757300)

the CC license.

I'm a small time programmer and I've been trying to find a license that allows me to release the source code for anyone to modify/use but not have the ability to take my source code and repackage it in another form and make money off it. I don't have a problem with people using the code itself to make money, my only issue is with repackaging it to sell.

I started looking at the CC license and I was pleased with it until I seen you can't offer exclusive license deals. Now I'm an idiot when it comes to understanding all the legal mumbo jumbo so if I've read something wrong please forgive me. Searching Google hasn't been much of a help because I don't really know what to search for and what I do search for tends to be more mumbo jumbo I can't seem to understand.

So my question is does a license exist for the type of situation I explained above?

Re:Speaking of (1)

BrentH (1154987) | more than 5 years ago | (#21757700)

Ha, from that comment I could swear you're the/an auther of Paint.Net ;)

Re:Speaking of (1)

TheRaven64 (641858) | more than 5 years ago | (#21757826)

First, there is no such thing as 'the CC license,' there is the Creative Commons organisation and the offer a family of widely different licenses. The restrictions you want mean that your code will not qualify under the Free Software Foundation's four freedoms or the OSI definition so you can immediately discount any Free Software or Open Source license. The closest license I know of is the CC non-commercial share-alike license, but I don't know if it makes a distinction between using the software commercially and selling it.

To be honest, it's probably not worth your while releasing the code if you want those conditions. If I came across a license claiming those terms on your site, I would ignore you and move on elsewhere. The restrictions you want to place on the code mean that it could not be incorporated into any Free Software work (and so won't be distributed by most Linux distros or the BSDs, by the way) and so it's essentially valueless. If you want to release proprietary, closed software, then feel free. If you want to release the source, then you should think about why you want to release the source before you do.

Re:Speaking of (2, Interesting)

Actually, I do RTFA (1058596) | more than 5 years ago | (#21758070)

I think you were pretty hard on the grandparent. He sounds honestly confused, and wants to make his work available, but is worried someone will just grab it, change the name, sell it to a market, and screw him.

It seems like a perfectly valid worry, to me at least. And depending on why he cares, there are some options.

But, it is not a precise enough concern to deal with yet.

Re:Speaking of (1)

nrgy (835451) | more than 5 years ago | (#21758570)

Thank you.

What I do is code plugins for a third party application. This application has a very small market so developers don't have many resources to turn to (When I started the SDK only came with 3 plugin examples).

The reason behind releasing some source code is that I've gone through all the pains of figuring out how the application works, I've learned all the ins and outs. By releasing some source code I would like to help others that are just getting started. A sort of reference when you first get started and don't quiet know the process / chain of events of doing something. You can look at my source code as some sort of half assed tutorial.

As you can see my purpose is more for educational purposes and not "Here world, have my stuff and do as you please". I don't mind helping the other guy who does what I do, nor do I mind if it helps his employer make money. What I do mind is for some leech to come along and repackage what is supposed to be for learning purposes into a revenue stream.

Should someone want to buy the source code is why I'd like the option to be able to license it. Now I doubt that will ever happen but to have that option available to me is a whole lot better than not having it available and someone offering to license.

Re:Speaking of (1)

cheros (223479) | more than 6 years ago | (#21762920)

IANAL, but first off, your code is YOURS. You have the right to say who/where/what happens, so if YOU choose to release the under a license that compels the user to buy a pizza every other day and someone uses it on that condition (and fulfils it) you're fine.

Your problem comes when someone doesn't follow the rules, and I think you may be a bit too worried because you apear to be in a niche market.

Your motives are to 'spread your knowledge' (it's darn good advertising as well), but to stop someone from repackaging it as theirs and charge for it. The questions are:

- how likely is it that someone actually CAN without you noticing it? A friend of mine is ne of the maybe 15 people in the world who can supply market data REALLY fast (he tweaks to gain nanosecond improvements these days) - there is nobody that can appear afresh on teh scene without these guys noticing. Isn't your market similar (i.e. you'd stop it the moment this 'ripper' would try to sell)?

- how likely is it that someone would actually bother? If yours is for free, and theirs is at a charge it strikes me as sensible that you'd go to the source, and you can prove that. In addition, you have enforcement rights as code owner.

IMHO, package up a framework that is easy enough to use but only offer a simple app as demo to go with it. Or, even better, go the the product manufacturer for distribution - if it comes from them nobody is going to try getting creative.

Unless, of course, it's that main manufacturer you're worried about. In that case go to them with a formal license proposal, you make it publicly available but they can spread it as part of the packege if source formally acknowledged. Dual licensing is your right too, ask the MySQL people..

As stated before, IANAL, and you are to consider my rant of having no more intellectual value that the average George Bush speach. Umm, no. Above that. Let's not put the bar too low..

Good luck!

Ironic bug (1)

cheros (223479) | more than 6 years ago | (#21762928)

I meant 'speech', not 'speach', duh. Not enough caffeine yet, sorry.

Re:Speaking of (1)

Actually, I do RTFA (1058596) | more than 6 years ago | (#21775198)

I am not a lawyer. This is not legal advice. You should consult a lawyer!

As far as selling the code, there are two primary concerns. One is legal and a question of rights. The other is a practical matter. Pretty much any method of releasing your source to someone to study will necessitate giving copies of the code away for free. So there is a practical concern that people would aquire your code in that manner and thus the market would be eliminated. Even if you are not concerned about this possibility, if you are trying to get another party to license/sell it for you, then they may be concerned. The other concern you seem to have expressed is a concern that releasing it under a license will prevent you from releasing it under a different license. Most licenses, such as the creative commons ones, are nonexclusive. This means you can release your code in two different ways, although people will have the option to choose either one. So the license you will use so that people can learn will have to be unattractive enough to people who want to use the plugin will pay instead.

What may have confused you about the dual-licensing is the irrevokability of a license. Basically, once you give me a copy of the code with a license, you cannot take it back. If the license you give it to me under allows me to give it to other people, you can never prevent me from doing so. Some licenses can be revoked if the terms are broken, but some cannot.

As far as licenses go, I'm not sure which may interest you. You do not want to make your software free, so those are out. The problem is that most freely available licenses on the internet presume that people can distribute your code for noncommerical purposes (at least). Really, all you are interested in is the ability to use your code as educational material, not as a project in and of itself. I would recommend you look at the non-free licenses [fsf.org] section. You also may want to look at the Qt Free Edition License [stromian.com] . The last option may be the creative commons sampling plus license. The creative commons website expressly recommends against using it for software, but I don't understand the reasoning behind that.

Don't let the zealots make you feel bad for only exposing your code for educational purposes. Learning from other people's code is the best rational for exposing source (as opposed to forking/modifing/use) in my mind. Good luck.

Re:Speaking of (1)

Actually, I do RTFA (1058596) | more than 5 years ago | (#21757998)

I don't have a problem with people using the code itself to make money, my only issue is with repackaging it to sell.

That sentence is kind of fuzzy. Are you concerned about the repackaging because you want to sell the binary? Get the credit? Know how many people are using your software?

The above questions assume that your problem is with someone literally compiling your code under a different name (after changing the GUI, etc. to match.) Do you care if someone adds a feature? Incorporates it into a collection of freeware programs that they then sell if they don't change your binary?

There are tons of licenses. The BSD license, in its original form, lets anyone do anything with it, as long as you get a credit. But if you wouldn't mind explaining more about what you are trying to prevent, we'll see if something matches.

I am not a lawyer! I am not trying to offer legal advice, just point you in the direction of websites which may or may not have legal advice specific to your problem. If there are any lawyers who can improve my disclaimer (pro bono I'm afraid), please let me know.

creators launch common kode, no liesense required (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#21757496)

no gadgets required either. the kode base is newclear powered, foolproof, bug free & is extremely user friendly. it also can be adjusted to suit you by just adding a little more oxygen to your brain.

in the end, the creators will prevail (world without end, etc...), as it has always been. the process of gaining yOUR release from the current hostage situation may not be what you might think it is. butt of course, most of US don't know, or care what a precarious/fatal situation we're in. consider carefully, ALL of yOUR other options.

for example; the insidious attempts by the felonious corepirate nazi execrable to block the suns' light, interfering with a requirement (sunlight) for us to stay healthy/alive. it's likely not good for yOUR health/memories 'else they'd be bragging about it?

we're intending for the nazis to give up/fail even further, in attempting to control the 'weather'.

http://video.google.com/videosearch?hl=en&q=video+cloud+spraying [google.com]

meanwhile, the life0cidal philistines continue on their path of death, debt, & disruption for most of US;

gov. bush denies health care for the little ones

http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/10/03/bush.veto/index.html [cnn.com]

whilst demanding/extorting billions to paint more targets on the bigger kids

http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/12/12/bush.war.funding/index.html [cnn.com]

all is not lost/forgotten/forgiven

whilst (yOUR elected) president al gore (deciding not to wait for the much anticipated 'lonesome al answers yOUR questions' interview here on /.) continues to attempt to shed some light on yOUR foibles;

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article3046116.ece [timesonline.co.uk]

still making his views known worldwide, whilst many of US keep yOUR heads firmly lodged in the silicon sand hoping (against overwhelming information to the contrary) that the party LIEn scriptdead pr ?firm? fairytail hypenosys scenario will never end.

for each of the creators' innocents harmed in any way, there is a debt that must/will be repaid by you/us, as the perpetrators/minions of unprecedented evile, will not be available after the big flash occurs.

'vote' with (what's left in) yOUR wallet. help bring an end to unprecedented evile's manifestation through yOUR owned felonious corepirate nazi glowbull warmongering execrable.

consult with/trust in yOUR creators. providing more than enough of everything for everyone (without any distracting/spiritdead personal gain motives), whilst badtolling unprecedented evile, using an unlimited supply of newclear power, since/until forever. see you there?

In Soviet Russia (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#21757514)

CCCP++ License sells you!

Open content (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#21758208)

I'm in the early stages of what I'm calling an experiment in open-source gaming: I have a Flash game set up at spacecreeps.com [spacecreeps.com] , a defense game, and it's ad-supported but I decided to make it open source as well, under the GPL. So you can make a distribution of the game with your own ads and new content, but it still has to be open-source. Alternatively, I'll try to work out appropriate compensation for working with my own distro. I'm looking at the game as an ongoing entity where specific parts can get swapped in and out of it. Copyleft becomes critical to make this work.

For the media associated with the game I settled on the Free Art license as RMS has promoted it as being in line with the copyleft ideals of GPL. The CC licenses I find awfully frustrating. Most content using CC is Sharealike-NonCommercial, which makes it radioactive for a project like mine. CC++, from the overview, is sort of an improvement, but also not exactly what I'm going for.

Obligatory (1)

aitikin (909209) | more than 5 years ago | (#21758382)

I am eagerly awaiting the CC++ license. /me ducks.

How do you define commercial? (4, Interesting)

Njovich (553857) | more than 5 years ago | (#21758384)

So, what are the limits of the word 'commercial'? The way I read this license, you basically can not use this for anything. Websites with advertisements have an indirect trade or profit goal, you can't use the content on something like Youtube (which is part of a for-profit company), you can't use the artwork in a GPL'ed piece of code (it allows commercial use). Even a private artwork can be seen as a work to improve someones portfolio. The potential for good would be a lot bigger if the CC licenses didn't have this limit.

Of course, everyone should pick the license they want, but I think people underestimate just how limiting the NC licenses are for people that try to stick to the law.

"Commercial Use" ill-defined? (3, Interesting)

ortholattice (175065) | more than 5 years ago | (#21758624)

One problem I have with this and other "non-commercial" CC licenses is that "non-commercial" doesn't seem, to me, to be clearly defined. Certainly there can be blatant commercial uses that are easy to identify, but there are many situations where it is not so clear. Suppose, for example, the material is posted a personal home page, which is provided free by the ISP in exchange for advertisements. Does that constitute "commercial use"? Clearly, the ISP is profiting from the material if it is drawing people to that page and thus the ads. Who owes who what money?

Is a Red Cross advertisement commercial or noncommercial? If the Red Cross paid a magazine for an ad containing a CC+ licensed image, then the magazine is earning some money from it, even though the Red Cross itself is non-commercial. (Or is it?)

It is even hard to come up with examples where the use is disconnected from the slightest taint of a direct or indirect commercial connection.

Of course, CC+ is also incompatible with GPL-licensed software. For example, a CC licensed "non-commercial use" icon in a software package would prevent a commercial entity from using it, defeating the purpose of the GPL.

Even charitable use is commercial (1)

MichaelCrawford (610140) | more than 6 years ago | (#21762932)

The definition of "non-commercial" has been discussed a great deal on the cc-community mailing list. Among their conclusions is that charities using a CC-NC work for fundraising counts as commercial use.

So in your Red Cross example, it wouldn't be necessary to run the ad in a profit-making publication to count as commercial use.

Not as useful as I thought (1)

Spy Hunter (317220) | more than 6 years ago | (#21760190)

When I saw the summary I thought this was a central marketplace for CC work, with some sort of standard fee structure and licensing terms. So people making CC work could easily set commercial use prices, people buying CC work could pay instantly over the Internet through CC and be assured of standard reasonable terms without negotiation, and CC could even make a little profit. Seems to me this could be a valuable service, if CC is not allergic to profit in any form. I know there's plenty of CC-noncommercial work out there that I would have certainly paid a reasonable fee to use, if there was a standard easy way to do so.

this one made me subscribe to Slashdot (1)

tolworthy (1205778) | more than 6 years ago | (#21762458)

Excellent news! The best Christmas present for small amateur developers. Commercial copyright is a minefield in a swamp, and CC has created a bridge. Long overdue! I love creative commons.

Written Content (1)

rinkjustice (24156) | more than 6 years ago | (#21765730)

Would this work for written content, where if someone wants to use a portion of a book, they would pay a predetermined fee to do that? The only examples I see for CC+ are code.
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>