[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [gNewSense-users] [Artwork] Is Creative Commons Attribution Share-Al
Re: [gNewSense-users] [Artwork] Is Creative Commons Attribution Share-Alike license acceptable for Official gNewSense Artwork?
Tue, 21 Nov 2006 21:54:15 +1030
LinuxP2P:In the last couple of years, independent media and
entertainment seems has grown immensely. Just last week,
CreativeCommons.org passed the 200000 mp3s indexed milestone. Most
independent music, movies etc., use Creative Commons licensing.
A lot of the independent artwork has been spread through P2P (Using
legal independent artistry sites such as Jamendo.com and ccMixter.org,
as well as manually by the artists themselves.). Apart from the
obvious, which is that the GPL is written to cover software, what
differences are there between generic CC licensing and the GPL?
RMS: I have already explained the patent problem of MP3 format.
As your question illustrates, people have a tendency to disregard the
differences between the various Creative Commons licenses, lumping
them together as a single thing. That is as mixed-up as supposing San
Francisco and Death Valley have similar weather because they're both
Some Creative Commons licenses are free licenses; most permit at least
noncommercial verbatim copying. But some, such as the Sampling
Licenses and Developing Countries Licenses, don't even permit that,
which makes them unacceptable to use for any kind of work. All these
licenses have in common is a label, but people regularly mistake that
common label for something substantial.
I no longer endorse Creative Commons. I cannot endorse Creative
Commons as a whole, because some of its licenses are unacceptable. It
would be self-delusion to try to endorse just some of the Creative
Commons licenses, because people lump them together; they will
misconstrue any endorsement of some as a blanket endorsement of all. I
therefore find myself constrained to reject Creative Commons entirely.