Last Fosdem the FSF gave the Free Software Award to Larry Lessig for the advancement of Free Software. But what is the official stance of the FSF's on the Creative Commons Share-Alike License? http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/1.0/
It is a copyleft license, but it for software the GPL is much better. I understand the Creative Commons is targeted mainly at other disciplines of works, but the Creative Commons says nothing about software. Shouldn't the Creative Commons be urged by the FSF's to include the GPL as their preferred copyleft software-license?
Wouter
On Mon, Mar 17, 2003 at 07:01:05PM +0100, Wouter Vanden Hove wrote:
Last Fosdem the FSF gave the Free Software Award to Larry Lessig for the advancement of Free Software. But what is the official stance of the FSF's on the Creative Commons Share-Alike License?
I mailed FSF when Creative Commons was announced, asking if they'd publicly comment on it.
I got a reply saying that the goals were too different for them to comment. CC isn't for software.
Lessig is a good man, he's worked along side FSF in the past, gave them $20,000 last year, and Stallman reads his work.
I reckon they'd give a project of his the thumbs up.
Shouldn't the Creative Commons be urged by the FSF's to include the GPL as their preferred copyleft software-license?
I agree that they should have a note somewhere about it.
Maybe Lessig sees simplicity as a main aim in making the CC system work. ...or maybe you should send the CC guys a mail to suggest it.
Ciaran O'Riordan
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
On Wed, Mar 19, 2003 at 12:38:48AM +0000, Ciaran O'Riordan wrote:
On Mon, Mar 17, 2003 at 07:01:05PM +0100, Wouter Vanden Hove wrote:
Last Fosdem the FSF gave the Free Software Award to Larry Lessig for the advancement of Free Software. But what is the official stance of the FSF's on the Creative Commons Share-Alike License?
I mailed FSF when Creative Commons was announced, asking if they'd publicly comment on it.
I got a reply saying that the goals were too different for them to comment. CC isn't for software.
(IANAL) Hmmm, not so sure about that - the GPL is my software license of choice, but there isn't all that much difference with CC's Share-Alike license. (http://creativecommons.org/license/results-one?partner=&exit%5furl=&...).
Lessig is a good man, he's worked along side FSF in the past, gave them $20,000 last year, and Stallman reads his work.
Lessig is one of my heroes - as is RMS - but I do think you're mixing up Lessig and Eben Moglen, the FSF legal council, who donated $20,000 to the FSF last year (http://digitalmass.boston.com/news/globe_tech/upgrade/2002/1125.html). Unless Lessig *also* gave them $20,000, of course :)
I reckon they'd give a project of his the thumbs up.
I'm pretty sure they do.
Shouldn't the Creative Commons be urged by the FSF's to include the GPL as their preferred copyleft software-license?
I agree that they should have a note somewhere about it.
Maybe Lessig sees simplicity as a main aim in making the CC system work. ...or maybe you should send the CC guys a mail to suggest it.
I think CC and the FSF are complementary in the way that CC is much more accessible to the masses. One can actually point non-programmers/non-lawyers/ copyright novices to their site and say 'choose a license' - which they will be able to do quite intuitively.
I've asked CC about dual-licensing things (GPL & their BY-SA license), and here is what they said:
Thanks for your questions. First off I am required to say that we are not lawyers and are not able to give legal advice, however I can give you my perspective on this. Ultimately you can do what you like, but I think you could run into problems if there are any conflicting terms in either of the licenses. However in the case of derivative works you can specify that the user has the option to use either one of the license, just make sure it's clearly written somewhere. Thanks for the note, we should put a more in depth FAQ on this.
So that is probably what I will do with the software I write. For non-software, I'll probably go for CC licenses with their pretty icons and straightforward definitions.
Bye for now, Ward.
- -- Pong.be -( "Free Software as in free speech, not free beer. Think )- Virtual hosting -( of freedom, not price." -- Richard Stallman )- http://pong.be -( )- GnuPG public key: http://gpg.dtype.org
On Wed, Mar 19, 2003 at 09:17:24AM +0000, Ward Vandewege wrote:
I got a reply saying that the goals were too different for them to comment. CC isn't for software.
Hmmm, not so sure about that - the GPL is my software license of choice, but there isn't all that much difference with CC's Share-Alike license.
I wouldn't use any of the CC licenses for software, they are too vague. Issues such as static/dynamic linking are a lot more vague than the GPL. You or I can read it as being sufficient but IBM (etc.) could easily pick holes in it (for software).
I do think you're mixing up Lessig and Eben Moglen, the FSF legal council, who donated $20,000 to the FSF last year
how embarassing. Your right.
I think CC and the FSF are complementary in the way that CC is much more accessible to the masses.
More accessible yes, but I don't think the CC licenses would offer as much protection for software as the GPL does.
I've asked CC about dual-licensing things (GPL & their BY-SA license), and here is what they said:
[...] Ultimately you can do what you like, but I think you could run into problems if there are any conflicting terms in either of the licenses.
The CC person appears to be wrong in this case. Dual licensing cannot cause such "conflicts". If you dual license, the receiver of the item can choose to use it under the terms of either license. Could you let me know who said this so that I can clear this up?
So that is probably what I will do with the software I write.
I'd strongly suggest you consider not dual licensing the GPL and a CC license. Using a CC license will leave your software far more open to exploitation.
The requirement to ship source code isn't clear, and the requirement to ship *readable* source code is not mentioned at all... etc. SCO could easily (and legaly) produce a modified version and *not* ship the source.
Last point: software is about the only type of "work" not mentioned in the CC licenses, Lessig is well aware that software exists :) There just might be a reason why they left it out.
Ciaran O'Riordan
On Wed, Mar 19, 2003 at 11:11:00AM +0000, Ciaran O'Riordan wrote:
I think CC and the FSF are complementary in the way that CC is much more accessible to the masses.
More accessible yes, but I don't think the CC licenses would offer as much protection for software as the GPL does.
Hmmm. Interesting. I guess you are right. From the CC FAQ at http://creativecommons.org/faq:
Right now we don't plan to get involved in software licensing at all. Instead, we'll concentrate on scholarship, film, literature, music, photography, and other kinds of creative works.
Ultimately you can do what you like, but I think you could run into problems if there are any conflicting terms in either of the licenses.
The CC person appears to be wrong in this case. Dual licensing cannot cause such "conflicts". If you dual license, the receiver of the item can choose to use it under the terms of either license. Could you let me know who said this so that I can clear this up?
Well, she did put the IANAL disclaimer first. And now it is time for me to be embarrased, since my question to her was:
I would like to cover my writings under your BY-SA license and the GDL (without invariant sections), and give people the option of licensing derivative works under either the BY-SA license or the GDL (without invariant sections) or both. Can I do this?
As you can see, not about software but about non-software - and comparing the CC licenses with the GNU Documentation License, not the GPL.
So I don't think there is much need to clear up things.
I'd strongly suggest you consider not dual licensing the GPL and a CC license. Using a CC license will leave your software far more open to exploitation.
Point taken. I'll stick with the GPL for software. For all the rest (writings, photos, etc) I think I'll go with the CC licenses.
Bye for now, Ward.