Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!


Forgot your password?
Businesses Your Rights Online

Creative Commons Launches CC+ License 67

E1ven writes "Creative Commons has this week released their CC+ protocol, which provides a way for authors to allow other people to commercially reuse their work, and give them a pre-negotiated fee or percentage. It makes it easy for people to release the Material under CC-No-Commercial, and then have a way to charge for commercial use if companies are interested."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Creative Commons Launches CC+ License

Comments Filter:
  • by tepples ( 727027 ) <{tepples} {at} {gmail.com}> on Wednesday December 19, 2007 @06:00PM (#21757220) Homepage Journal

    Couldn't you just license your work under CC-*, and then license out commercial licenses anyway, given that you're the copyright holder?
    That's exactly what this is. You license a program under GNU GPL or any other work under CC-BY-*-NC or CC-BY-SA, and then you give alternate permission for other uses that do not conform. CC+ is just a uniform way to express such a dual license.
  • Re:That's smart... (Score:3, Informative)

    by zotz ( 3951 ) on Wednesday December 19, 2007 @06:56PM (#21757888) Homepage Journal
    "Finally a smart license... Open Source, but if you want binary or commercial, here are my terms... That lets the developer play nice with Open Source, but gives those that don't want to be nice to Open Source an avenue to buy, thus letting the developer playing nicer with Open Source..."

    That's not what this is. It could sort of become that, but it is not.

    First, CC licenses are not recommended for code. I think the still recommend the GPL for that.

    Second, I think this is only for their licenses with NC terms, so it is definitely not akin to Free or Open Source Software.

    If they make the same deal for their BY-SA license, that would be closer to what you speak of, but just not recommended for software. I for one, hope they do this with BY-SA.

    all the best,

  • by boyko.at.netqos ( 1024767 ) on Wednesday December 19, 2007 @06:59PM (#21757920)
    Actually, here's a real-world example (and I was praying for something like this...)

    I'm making a documentary that I may as well plug now, www.followingalexiswest.com. (In fact, I'm making this post from LAX, having just returned from on-location filming.)

    Now, in any documentary, you typically get about 20-25:1 shooting ratio. What that means is that for every hour of actual documentary, you've filmed about 20-25 hours of raw footage. In my case, much of that is interviews - educational, important interviews.

    That would normally end up on the cutting-room floor - but there's so much educational, important information there. Once I get the stuff digitized, I'm taking a copy of all the raw footage and giving it to the New Zealand Film Archive, and uploading it online on Google Video. And I want people to use this raw footage in their own documentary projects - especially if they're students.

    But there are still "commercial" uses - indie documentarians like me - who could also use the footage. I don't want them to take it without negotiating a fair price, but I do want to let them know that it's within the realm of possibility to licence the footage without breaking the bank.

    Now, I could release it under a CC licence and sell it to commercial interests, but a CC+ licence makes it explicit that I'm looking to make money - but if you just want to muck around with it for a student project, you'll get no hassle.
  • Re:That's smart... (Score:4, Informative)

    by novakyu ( 636495 ) <novakyu@novakyu.net> on Wednesday December 19, 2007 @11:21PM (#21760574) Homepage
    Perhaps you should check the definition of free software [gnu.org], or the Debian Free Software Guideline [debian.org] (which is the basis of the Open Source Definition).

    Any license that does not grant free redistribution (not free as in beer, free as in freedom---as in that the re-distributor is free to charge money for the service, if someone would pay) is definitely not free, and most likely not open source.

    I don't know why people get these wrong impressions that "free software" == "anti-commercial", but nothing could be further from the truth. Free software is just about as Laissez-Faire, free, capitalistic economic system as you can possibly get (free from government-granted monopolies, etc.). Licenses that "play nice" with communities by "graciously" granting non-commercial uses is definitely better than completely proprietary licenses (or a lack of one), but it's only halfway there since any such license still restricts your freedom in ways that are not acceptable.

    If you aren't totally convinced still why these "non-commercial only" licenses are wrong, here's a very simple reason why: Those licenses are GPL-incompatible, since GPL does not allow addition of restrictions with small exceptions, and any project or software using those restrictive licenses is excluding a lot of code out there that is already released under GPL.
  • Re:That's smart... (Score:2, Informative)

    by LiquidFire_HK ( 952632 ) on Thursday December 20, 2007 @03:35PM (#21768690)
    I am not talking about a license that disallows commercial use. As I said, Qt is licensed under the GPL. However, many commercial products are not GPL, and using Qt in them would thus not be an option. So, not as a restriction but as an additional option that you would not have if it was just the GPL, you can license Qt for use in non-GPL projects.

    Qt is dual licensed. It's not a modified version of the GPL. It is free software, because it's GPL. In fact, it's, in a way, freer than GPL software, because you can use it in non-GPL projects.

    (And of course I'm only using Qt as an example. I'm sure there are other similarly-licensed products.)

If a 6600 used paper tape instead of core memory, it would use up tape at about 30 miles/second. -- Grishman, Assembly Language Programming