Creative Commons: Difference between revisions
much more on what Creative Commons is - from Disinfopedia article
No edit summary |
(much more on what Creative Commons is - from Disinfopedia article) |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
The '''Creative Commons''' [[parametric license]] regime is a more flexible alternative to [[GFDL]]. | The '''Creative Commons''' [[parametric license]] regime is a more flexible alternative to [[GFDL]]. Its [[nonprofit]] [http://creativecommons.org .org] was founded by [[Lawrence Lessig]] which attempts to: | ||
*advocate for rights of creators to share their work with each other - without the strict requirements or flaws of [[Open Source]] which many creators reject | |||
*provide a [[parametric license]] with predictable terms to simplify use of works by others, similar to what prevails in the music industry where there is no need to seek specific permission for certain types of pre-cleared uses (though Creative Commons does not at present have a royalty handling system and deals only with free use) | |||
*define exact legal [[Share Alike]] terms to encourage [[share-alike]] that goes beyond [[free software]] and extends into music, writing, reporting and arts | |||
*define exact legal [[NoDerivs]] terms to permit artists who do not want work to be changed by others, e.g. as in the film industry where directors resist such modifications, to find common cause and work to defend common contracts | |||
*encourage [[open content]] by developing the idea of [[Common Content]] which is more exactly legally defined as anything under any of the above licenses | |||
The '''Creative Commons attribution-sharealike''' or '''CC-by-sa''' license is normally considered to be the closest equivalent to the [[GFDL]] used here at [[Consumerium:Itself]]. Some advocate dual-licensing open content under both so it would be easier to swap text between these two [[share-alike]] content licenses. | |||
=== beyond GFDL === | |||
There are serious problems with the [[GFDL]] and especially its [[Wikimedia violates GFDL|extreme bad-faith interpretation by Wikimedia]] which has so twisted the license's intent as to put all of [[Wikipedia]] in public domain. | |||
The [[Green Documentation License]] expected to be a [[Consumerium License]] may actually fit within the parametric options that the CC license provides. Thus, the GDL would *be* a CC license, but it would not be the [[GFDL]] license. Talks are ongoing to dual license most of the [[GFDL text corpus]] under something that might end up as a variant of the [[CC by-sa]] license, which is the most useful [[consortium license]] - requiring [[attribution]] and [[share-alike]], with possibly additional terms to deal with [[moral rights]], which the [[Front-Cover Text]]s, [[Back-Cover Text]]s, [[Secondary Section]] and [[Invariant Section]]s are supposed to help express (though some claim that they do so imperfectly). | The [[Green Documentation License]] expected to be a [[Consumerium License]] may actually fit within the parametric options that the CC license provides. Thus, the GDL would *be* a CC license, but it would not be the [[GFDL]] license. Talks are ongoing to dual license most of the [[GFDL text corpus]] under something that might end up as a variant of the [[CC by-sa]] license, which is the most useful [[consortium license]] - requiring [[attribution]] and [[share-alike]], with possibly additional terms to deal with [[moral rights]], which the [[Front-Cover Text]]s, [[Back-Cover Text]]s, [[Secondary Section]] and [[Invariant Section]]s are supposed to help express (though some claim that they do so imperfectly). | ||
| Line 11: | Line 23: | ||
See [[faction license]] for a proposal to optimize the flexibility of this. | See [[faction license]] for a proposal to optimize the flexibility of this. | ||
== External | == External links == | ||
http://zesty.ca/cc.html - pros and cons | *http://creativecommons.org | ||
*http://zesty.ca/cc.html - pros and cons | |||
*http://commoncontent.org - everything licensed under CC | |||