Should CC release software licenses? | Creative Commons

Should CC release software licenses? | Creative Commons

It has been suggested that there would be some value in CC entering the field of software licensing. I am skeptical (there are plenty of software licenses) but the explosion of mixed code/content platforms (e.g., Flash) has led me to at least get feedback about the idea. So if you have thoughts about this, I’d be grateful if you could send them to [email protected]

Please email CC to oppose this. It’s an interesting area but YAL is not the solution.

Possibly CC could draft a GPL-3 exception to allow aggregation with BY-SA content?

Posted in Free Culture
2 comments on “Should CC release software licenses? | Creative Commons
  1. This is what I sent:
    Should CC release software licenses?
    In accord with CC’s pix’n’mix philosophy, yes.
    What I would have done is create a single share-alike license that would work for everything, e.g. “I will not sue you for your use of my work unless you sue someone else for their use of our work – except where this is to preserve privacy or truth”.
    As far as software is concerned there are 5 key preferences:
    -1) Inspection – a license that requires source code disclosure, but prevents any commercial exploitation (NC), possibly also derivatives (ND)
    0) Abdication – a license like BSD that leaves ethics to the recipient
    1) Open Source – a license that requires source code disclosure
    2) Free – a license that maximises liberty and protects it
    3) Gift Economy – a license that obliges reciprocation (prevents exploitation of derivatives unless published)
    GPLv2+’and no later’ is addressing the ‘open source’ angle.
    GPLv3 is addressing the free angle.
    APL, HPL, and EUPL are addressing the gift economist angle.
    So, you could have
    -1) CC-SW-NC/ND
    0) CC-SW-PD (public domain/BSD)
    1) CC-SW-OPEN (GPLv2)
    2) CC-SW-FREE (GPLv3)
    3) CC-SW-GIFT (APL/HPL/EUPL)

  2. NB That example of a grand unified share-alike license is obviously non-recursive – it would need to be made recursive, of course.