Creative Commons licenses

is it better or worse than GPL? or is something like BSD license should be used instead?

Don't use CC for code. That's stupid.

>>2
I just heard GPL doesn't protect from people selling your software(with sourcecode). Since i'm not a lawyer and can't understand GPL much i'll rather not use it and use CC which is just 5 lines of text.

>>3
Then find a real source-code license that offers what you want. Don't be a fucking idiot.

does GPL allow this:
Person A makes X and publishes with sourcecode and GPL
Person B copies X with sourcecode and sells at profit.
Person A can't do anything to B.

>>5
People who buy the X copy are idiots, unless B just broke even (the cost of physical media). I don't see why you'd be worried about this scenario. If someone actually payed money for that they're stupid (I've seen some programs like this, and usually they target total idiots...).

Creative Commons licenses should not be used for software. We strongly encourage you to use one of the very good software licenses which are already available. We recommend considering licenses made available by the Free Software Foundation or listed at the Open Source Initiative. Unlike our licenses, which do not make mention of source or object code, these existing licenses were designed specifically for use with software.
http://wiki.creativecommons.org/FAQ

/thread

>>6
You don't understand. I don't have the advertising budget or exposure of people who routinely steal software and push it through the morons(whom are in limitless supply).
If GPL allows such dirty tricks as selling+with source i will not use it.

>>8
Why must you forbid this? If someone is a good enough marketer to sell to idiots, that's his own success. It's not like he's stealing from you, people can and will use your software if it's good. If someone takes your software, makes a GUI for it and sells it to idiots, it's his own damn right. What he's doing is not infringing on anyone's freedoms, he's just suckering some idiots, who would have been suckered on other things, if not for your code.

>>9
FSF - Raping your software since 1989

>>1
Friend, there is only confusion in your question. Perhaps, you could quantify which qualities you desire in a licensing agreement then we could figure which license is good for you.

>>9
I think it's obvious that he wants either a pre-written proprietary license, or some stupid open source one like the Aladdin license.
>>1
is it better or worse than GPL?
It depends on which CC license you use. Strictly speaking, CC BY NC SA is more restrictive than the GPL, although this doesn't stop a lot of the GPL haters from fawning over it.

CC BY NC SA is more restrictive than the GPL, although this doesn't stop a lot of the GPL haters from fawning over it.

It's not an issue of freedom but of honesty. Many closed-source licenses are more honest than the GPL.

Whenever you see something licensed under CC-BY-NC-SA, you get to see http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/3.0/ which tells you exactly what you may and may not do.

Whenever a program is licensed under the GPL, you get to see a bunch of filthy lies, prefaced by the filthiest of all, that it "is intended to guarantee your freedom".

Then as soon as you misinterpret one of the thousands of edge cases that the GPL is designed to make happen as often as possible, hundreds of litigation-happy freetards blog up a smear campaign against you, ignoring any reasonable argument that your case does not violate the GPL, ignoring any offer to negotiate a compromise that would lead to stopping the perceived violation, accepting no other reparation than having you fully endorse their political agenda by GPLing all your code.

Even if you do understand the GPL, its proponents do not.
Even if you do something that is allowed, it is not worth risking your reputation, chances of employment, or business, just for the convenience of using GPL'd software.

>>13
My post was not an invitation for you to show us how retarded most GPL haters are.

>>14
My post was not an invitation for you to show us how retarded most freetards are.

it is in fact perfectly legal to package Ubuntu and its source as GNAA/LUNIX FUNCTIONAL CLUSTER OS and sell for 666$ each.
I've seen companies selling Linux and open source software.
Since 99% of users are as dumb as bricks, you can even sell it online for profit(and subscribe for 20$ per month fee recurring fee which is nearly impossible to cancel without cancellation of the card).

Good luck
http://ask.slashdot.org/story/10/07/28/1744245/What-To-Do-About-CC-License-Violations

>>17
But BoingBoing are a bunch of copyright infringement enthusiasts. It's normal mo for them to liberate commercial content all the time.
That does not mean that honest people routinely infringe on CC by mistake.

>>3
The real license is 20 times longer
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/legalcode

>>13
We've said it once, we've said it a thousand times. In the free software movement, we stand for freedom for the users of software. We formulated our views by looking at what freedoms are necessary for a good way of life, and permit useful programs to foster a community of goodwill, cooperation, and collaboration. Our criteria for free software specify the freedoms that a program's users need so that they can cooperate in a community.

The premises of the GPL are simple: if you wish to distribute the licensed software 1) grant your recipients the same rights as you have received 2) give them a copy of the GPL itself so that they are also aware of their rights 3) if for any reason you (as the distributor) cannot comply with the license, you will not have permission to convey this software to a third party.

All the legalese exists for people who are confused by these premises.

Also, ad hominem doesn't look good for serios busniss. 8/10, because your worth it.

All the legalese exists for people who are confused by these premises.

Nice newspeak figure. Your legalese is built to be confusing and open to interpretation, and you know it.

How about stating that your GPL (General Privation License^[1]) requires anyone who use the source to release all his source online and license it under the GPL (General Privation License)? It would be more intellectually honest than trying to co-opt virally those of us who want to only share code, and not your anarcho-socialist agenda.


[1]: It is very important to rename any concept you dislike in the FSF (Foolish Silly Freetard) lifestyle - http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/words-to-avoid.html

>>21
When did we start letting /g/tards in? It's not as if there wasn't already a whole fucking other thread dedicated to exactly this misunderstanding.

>>21
Except I don't understand what you're saying. Your assertions make vague references and fail to point out specific examples that will reasonably support your argument.

Nice newspeak figure. Your legalese is built to be confusing and open to interpretation, and you know it.
Now that you've asserted my response as newspeak, would mind explaining in further detail? Or is this just a red herring argument? Would you mind pointing out how the GPL legalese is worded to actually prevent the premises pointed out in >>20?

>>23
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I25UeVXrEHQ
You're move.

>>24
RMS eats something from his body during some meeting. I still don't understand your point.

>>24
Even if he had eaten something off his foot, it would have absolutely nothing to do with the topic at hand.

>>25
>>26
With the viral nature of the GPL, the point of the vid seems to be that GNU people are perceived to be giftgivers who want to protect your right to enjoy bareback. HTH.

FSF is essentially good. It is not "perfectly good" but it yet to be replaced by something better. Its a common error(perfectionist fallacy) to ascribe improbable/all-encompassing qualities such as ``perfect freedom' to licenses made to restrict the use of product.
The concept of licensing and copyright is antithesis to ``perfect freedom'. FSF replaces more un-free(pro-commercial) licenses by pro-sharing licenses, but it is not "releasing something from copyright".
Factors of such inherent 'unfreedom':
The modern economy of IP is based to restrict information via legal code, enforced through licensing.
People want money, and rights attributed to their creations.
Its considered pro-social and anti-individualistic to share private goods.
The concept of reification: non-material ideas become patented/copyrighted and thus controlled. Ideas are equated to tangible goods.

So basically, that means if you want a license that's as straightforward as the MIT license, but that requires that other people use the same licensing terms if they modify your code, CC-BY-NC-SA + a disclaimer of liability is the only option, right?

>>29
That isn't what was asked for, and no.

>>28
That's pretty good but misses a few points.

It’s a common mistake to assume Freedom means ‘do as you please’. Freedom always comes with restrictions if it is just and equal, because your freedom to do something often implies a restriction or cost for me. The question is then raised, "whose freedom becomes more important?" We assert that the users' freedom is more important. The FSF's purpose is to promote the users' software freedom. People that would oppose this are people who have a stake in promoting proprietary software.

We do not oppose commerce and business. We don't care how much money you manage to make. We care about anti-social methods of conducting business. Proprietary software is an anti-social way to distribute software; whether software is distributed gratis or within commerce, software should not be proprietary.

It is not anti-individual to share things whether they are ideas or physical tools. It's OK to keep your things private.

The concept of reification of ideas wouldn't be so bad if society retained their essential freedoms.

>>27
I don't see how that's relevant to anything. Bareback? That doesn't make sense.

>31
back to /b/, please.

>>32
You fail it.

You want the muthafuking win that is the Apache License.

>>33
back to /b/, please.

>>34
Apache license still permits commercial distribution.

>>35
Fuck off, ``faggot''.

>>37
back to /b/, please.

Fuck off, ``faggot''.

That's why the OS X ways are better than the political circus of the Linux world.
 We build upon BSD software, release our useful modifications as freeware, we only need one reliable download source for our software, we offer automatic updates with the industry-standard MIT-licensed Sparkle framework, then we put a $19.95 price tag and 15 days trial period on version 2 and remove all previous versions from download.
Everybody wins.

>>40
You forgot the part where it's locked to an expensive hardware platform.

Summary of the thread:
GPL is not free in any meaning.
Stallman rapes your freedom.
You = slave forever bound by GPL.
Everyone can sell your software.
Other licenses have plenty of their own problems.
The copyright industry is strong, users are weak.

This thread has been closed and replaced with the following thread:


Subject: Compiling GPL software in sales
Name:
Email:

It doesn't work.

<-- check em dubz