Quoting Maxthon Chan (xcvi...@me.com): > How to use CC in software licensing then? Or do we need a specific CC > variant or addendum for code?
The CC licences have been skillfully crafted for a different problem space (culural/artistic works), so I'd say that would be generally a bad idea. Broadly speaking, Creative Commons set out to encourage authors of written works, music, and similar copyright-eligible works to accept the concept of remixing and third-party redistribution to create derivative works, by publishing a diverse set of licences, some proprietary and others not, with differing degrees of control about commercial use, attribution requirements, and making of derivative works -- so as to maximise the commons. Software has special problems that CC's classes of licences don't need to address. I have no problem reverse-engineering the construction of a novel to determine how to write my own. (There cannot be a proprietary secret sauce, no unavailable or obscured source code.) There are no patent minefields in the way of novels. (I know: I just challenged the Internet to conjure up a counter-example.) -- Cheers, I'm ashamed at how often I use a thesaurus. I mean bashful. Rick Moen Embarrassed! Wait--humiliated. Repentant. Chagrined! Sh*t! r...@linuxmafia.com -- @cinemasins McQ! (4x80) _______________________________________________ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@opensource.org http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
