Creative Commons as an example of a simple license

Creative Commons as an example of a simple license

[Esteban Barahona]

apparently I "have lines longer than 80 characters" so I have to post like this:
http://www.zensui.org/CC/about_GPLv3.html

Re: Creative Commons as an example of a simple license

[DervishD]

    Hi Esteban :)

 * Esteban Barahona <esteban.barahona@gmail.com> dixit:
> apparently I "have lines longer than 80 characters" so I have to
> post like this: http://www.zensui.org/CC/about_GPLv3.html

    Unfortunately, your HTML file also have lines longer than 80
characters, that's probably why you couldn't post your original
message.

    Anyway, I'll try to answer some of it here, quoting from the
reformatted text:

> I agree. I've started to read GPLv2 and the draft of GPLv3, but
> they're so plain *boring* to read that I never finish reading. The
> 3 clause BSD license is more straight-forward (although too
> permissive). But of all the Free and Open Culture Licenses that
> I've read, the Creative Commons is IMHO the simpler and so the
> best.

    Unfortunately, this is not as simple. I'm not a lawyer, so take
my words with a lot of salt... A simpler license is simpler to
understand, but that doesn't make it the best. The best license
should achieve all your goals. If your goals are simplicity, then the
simpler license is the best. Otherwise...

    In software, probably the goals are different. _MY_ goals are: if
you take my work and you modify it, share the modifications. I don't
even really care about if the one who makes the derived work credits
me. Of course, I like to see my name as the original author, but
that's not my main goal. My main goal is: if you take, please give.
For that, something like GPLv2 is ideal, but other people may (and
really should!) think very differently.

    This said, thinking that the simpler a license, the better it is,
is plain wrong. It like saying that the simpler the code, the best.
Sometimes the best code is also simple, but that's not common.

> Spanish is my native language, and reading legaleze (laws, as sets
> of restrictions enforced by a supposed "authority") in English is
> too boring; and even more if I'm chosing the license for my (art,
> design, creative) works.

    This is something that I fully understand because Spanish is too
my mother tongue and I find VERY boring to read legalese O:)

> IMHO one of the strenghts of the Creative Commons license is that
> it doesn't exclude anyone. There's a subset of
> permissions/restrictions (some mutually exclusive, like "non
> derivatives" and "share alike" in which "share alike" doesn't even
> apply) which each individual copyright owner choses.

    I find Creative Commons a very good license, and I encourage its
use, but I'm still not sure if it suits software. Software has its
own subtleties and problems, and I don't think that CC licenses
protects it correctly. For example (and please correct me if I'm
wrong because I'm very interested in this issue), if you release some
software with a too-free license (something like "do whatever you
want with my code but respect my name as original author"), some evil
company can take the software, modify it, sell it and RELICENSE it as
long as they say "Oh, BTW, the original author was Mr. Poor Bastard".
After that you won't be able to take the software, modify it and
redistribute it because you will be probably violating THEIR license.
GPLv2 protects against that, and I'm afraid that CC doesn't unless
you choose a more restrictive subset of rights, which in turn may
make impossible for others to modify and redistribute the work.
Moreover, I want my license to be "viral", in the sense that the
modifications are distributed in the same terms as my original
software, and I don't know if CC allows for this :?????

> Altough there's an implicit free/open/sharing culture philosophy,
> the license itself is a way of expressing clearly the (c) owner's
> permissions and/or restrictions. Nothing less, nothing more.

    Don't forget that CC is written too in "legalese", otherwise it
won't be enforceable in court. The fact that they provide human
readable forms doesn't change the fact that if you live in this
crappy word you have to deal with lawyers :((

> Current GPLv3 draft and the discussion between Open Source and Free
> Software movements deals with the legaleze and minutae... which
> IMHO few creative content producers (I'm including artists and
> developers in the same "box" for the sake of discussion) people
> care to deal with.

    I can't speak for artist, and although I can't speak for
developers either, what I've seen in the software world is that many
software authors care about license. I *do* care about the license I
choose for my software, and I think that any developer whose software
may be interesting to other developers and not only to end users do
care too about licensing. Please notice that I'm not saying they care
about the legalese, but about the license. They probably hire a
lawyer to make sure the license is enforceable.

> A simple software license (and as such understandable) may end (I
> hope) the discussion between "Free" and "Open" movements. The
> license can even be modular to provide with flexibility (like the
> Creative Commons license), but it's only a license and should be
> treated as such. The personal motivations,
> philosophy/ideology/religion, etc are subjective and as such
> shouldn't be "permated" (don't know if that's the word) into an
> objective legal contract.

    I'm with you in that maybe a modular license would be perfect, as
long as the modules are few and more or less orthogonal, so they can
be defended in court if the need arises. But I'm not with you in that
a simpler and more understandable license would help. You don't have
to fully understand the license. I don't have to understand it,
either. A judge must understand it. Obviously, the better you and me
understand the license, the better choice we will be making, but
that's a matter of re-reading the license, consult lawyers, taking
advice, etc. Myself, I wouldn't rely on a license I can understand at
first reading XD

> The problem with subjective clauses is that it makes the license
> (and the combination of other licenses) more complex... and that is
> counter-productive (license's incompatibility). Software licenses
> has enough oddities to deal with because of it's nature (a plain
> "pixel matrix" is easier to understand... it can be explained to
> anyone without using technical terms) and adding such subjective
> clauses and discussion is IMO self-defeating.

    You're probably right, I don't know. I think that the entire
GPLv3 issue is very important, and I don't like a license with an
agenda, but I must confess that I haven't read the GPLv3 latest draft
enought times to fully understand it or its consequences. In fact,
I've relicensed my software to GPLv2-only until I fully understand
the new license. I've considered relicensing to CC, but when I tried
I didn't find any subset of rights that achieve what I wanted, and
GPLv2 fulfilled my needs. Moreover, I understand GPLv2 (or at least,
I think I understand enough of it to have made the more sensible
decision for my software) and its consequences, while I'm not sure
about the consequences of adopting a CC license. Maybe in the
future...

    BTW, if you want feel free to write me privately if you want to
continue speaking about this issue and you find more comfy to do it
in Spanish ;)

    Raúl Núñez de Arenas Coronado

-- 
Linux Registered User 88736 | http://www.dervishd.net
It's my PC and I'll cry if I want to... RAmen!

Re: Creative Commons as an example of a simple license

[Gene Heskett]

On Thursday 28 September 2006 02:59, Esteban Barahona wrote:
>apparently I "have lines longer than 80 characters" so I have to post
> like this: http://www.zensui.org/CC/about_GPLv3.html

At least one person read my rant, thank you Esteban.  However, I wasn't 
aware that the Creative Commons License was a "pick-a-rule" license, where 
you could drasticly change the effect of the license and still call it the 
CCL.

I need obviously, to read it more carefully.

-- 
Cheers, Gene
"There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty:
 soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order."
-Ed Howdershelt (Author)
Yahoo.com and AOL/TW attorneys please note, additions to the above
message by Gene Heskett are:
Copyright 2006 by Maurice Eugene Heskett, all rights reserved.

Re: Creative Commons as an example of a simple license

[DervishD]

    Hi Gene :)

 * Gene Heskett <gene.heskett@verizon.net> dixit:
> On Thursday 28 September 2006 02:59, Esteban Barahona wrote:
> >apparently I "have lines longer than 80 characters" so I have to post
> > like this: http://www.zensui.org/CC/about_GPLv3.html
> 
> [...] However, I wasn't aware that the Creative Commons License was
> a "pick-a-rule" license, where you could drasticly change the
> effect of the license and still call it the CCL.

    It's not exactly a "pick-a-rule" license. I'll try to explain
(but my explanation can be an utter nonsense, so read the licenses
yourself anyway). Just like GPL is "copyleft" and not a "copyright"
because you *grant* rights instead of taking them up, the CC licenses
may be seen as "some rights reserved" instead of "all rights
reserved". That is, you give something but reserver some rights, for
example, the right of attribution. If you reserve that right, derived
works have to carry your name in addition to the person who modified
your work. Or for example, you can give your work for free and
require that it is not used for commercial uses. You're reserving the
commercialization right for you.

    It's a very interesting license because it's like releasing your
work to public domain, but restricting what you may thing is misuse
of your work. I don't find any CC license appropriate for my
software, but I think it is a very interesting license for art,
books, etc. In fact, I find it much better than, for example, GFDL
for books, manuals and other documentation.

    Raúl Núñez de Arenas Coronado

-- 
Linux Registered User 88736 | http://www.dervishd.net
It's my PC and I'll cry if I want to... RAmen!

RE: Creative Commons as an example of a simple license

[David Schwartz]

> Or for example, you can give your work for free and
> require that it is not used for commercial uses. You're reserving the
> commercialization right for you.

Actually, you can't do that. Copyright law does not permit restriction of
use unless you can condition it on doing something else.

There is no way to prevent someone who lawfully receives a copy of a work
(who doesn't have to go through any click-through or shrink-wrap agreement)
from using it commercially.

You could say that anyone who modifies it or copies it must refrain from
using it commercially. But that wouldn't stop someone who downloaded it from
a web site or bought it on a CD from doing so.

You would essentially have to say that in order to give someone a copy, you
must obtain their affirmative assent to the usage restrictions or require
that works always be packaged in an installer that required their assent to
the terms.

See http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html#106 and notice that it
doesn't say anything about commercial use. If someone isn't trying to do any
of those things, copyright won't stop them.

DS

Re: Creative Commons as an example of a simple license

[DervishD]

    Hi David :)

 * David Schwartz <davids@webmaster.com> dixit:
> > Or for example, you can give your work for free and
> > require that it is not used for commercial uses. You're reserving the
> > commercialization right for you.
> 
> Actually, you can't do that. Copyright law does not permit
> restriction of use unless you can condition it on doing something
> else.

    So the non-commercial CC license is not enforceable (at least in
your country)?. Here in Spain I don't know if that is enforceable or
not, but to my (limited) knowledge, you can restrict something so the
recipient cannot use it for commercial purposes. If any spaniard
could tell something sensible about this issue I would be grateful.
 
> You could say that anyone who modifies it or copies it must refrain
> from using it commercially. But that wouldn't stop someone who
> downloaded it from a web site or bought it on a CD from doing so.

    Will in this case the NC+share-alike CC license work?
 
> See http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html#106 and notice
> that it doesn't say anything about commercial use. If someone isn't
> trying to do any of those things, copyright won't stop them.

    I see that this is for US: do you know if the same applies to
European countries, for example? I think that our copyright laws are
very different, but I cannot swear it, 'cause copyrigth is a complex
issue no matter the country.

    Raúl Núñez de Arenas Coronado

-- 
Linux Registered User 88736 | http://www.dervishd.net
It's my PC and I'll cry if I want to... RAmen!

RE: Creative Commons as an example of a simple license

[David Schwartz]

> > See http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html#106 and notice
> > that it doesn't say anything about commercial use. If someone isn't
> > trying to do any of those things, copyright won't stop them.

>     I see that this is for US: do you know if the same applies to
> European countries, for example? I think that our copyright laws are
> very different, but I cannot swear it, 'cause copyrigth is a complex
> issue no matter the country.

I know a lot about US copyright law, a bit about German copyright law, a
very tiny smidge about Japanese copyright law, and nothing at all about any
other country. So I'm not the person to ask.

It's impossible to violate the GPL (or any license of its type). You can
violate copyright law, but you cannot violate the GPL. The GPL is kind of
like a sign that says "free dirt". If someone takes your tractor, you don't
complain that they violated the sign (because it only offered free dirt, not
free tractors), you complain that they violated laws against theft.

DS