Creative Commons v3.0 Launched

An anonymous reader writes "Creative Commons announced the release of its licenses on Friday 23 Feb 2007. Changes include "Clarifications Negotiated With Debian and MIT", CC-BY-SA "compatibility structure", endorsement control, etc."

Nope, still not GNU compatible

[tepples]

From the CC-BY 3.0 Legal Code [creativecommons.org]:

4. Restrictions. The license granted in Section 3 above is expressly made subject to and limited by the following restrictions:
a. [...] If You create an Adaptation, upon notice from any Licensor You must, to the extent practicable, remove from the Adaptation any credit as required by Section 4(b), as requested.

All six primary Creative Commons licenses contain this provision. The GNU copyleft licenses (GNU General Public License and GNU Free Documentation License) do not allow authors to require downstream users to alter or remove credits. Therefore, it appears that the Creative Commons licenses are still incompatible with GNU licenses, and works under a Creative Commons license cannot be used in works under GNU licenses such as GPL computer games and GFDL software manuals. I've explained this in more detail on my user page on Wikimedia Commons [wikimedia.org].

No.

[tepples]

Does it mean Iceweasel will finally be renamde firefox ?

No. The source code for Firefox software is distributed under the Mozilla Public License and GNU licenses, not a Creative Commons license. Besides, the Creative Commons licenses are copyright licenses, and Firefox vs. Iceweasel is a trademark issue, not a copyright issue.

Re:Nope, still not GNU compatible

[lys1123]

So would you be in favor of a license more in line with GNU copyleft ideas, like maybe the Free Artist Community License [pbwiki.com]?

Re:Seeing that GPL get more asshole every revision

[cortana]

People (e.g., Debian) who want to distribute a program that is licensed under the GPL and that uses data files (icons, music, etc) that is licensed under Creative Commons licenses care.

Creative Commons == GPL (Sometimes)

[ubuwalker31]

I think the most important development is that the GPL and the LGPL are now official Creative Commons Licenses: http://creativecommons.org/license/cc-gpl?lang=en and http://creativecommons.org/license/cc-lgpl?lang=en .

I also like the "human readable" version of the licenses which list out the four essential software freedoms in a "deed" format: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/GPL/2.0/

I think that there are more people who are familiar with the CC licensing system, than with the GPL, so this should really be helpful.

Of course, there is an issue as to whether the other CC licenses are compatible with the GPL/CC-GPL or with debian, etc. Thats where the debate is too.