Comments on: Creative Commons is not for Software, I Disagree

By: Kevin Marino

Kevin Marino — Fri, 26 Jan 2007 21:50:14 +0000

Hmm, interesting arguments. Funny thing is I have read in the past that some question the legality of the CC license, as there are many implied copyrights already and other stuff.

As far as I know (I’m not a lawyer) no one has really tested these licenses (CC, MIT specifically) to see if they would hold up legally anyways.

Hey maybe I should use your code, you sue me for no attribution and lets see where it goes, hehe.

By: JesterXL

JesterXL — Thu, 25 Jan 2007 09:47:10 +0000

Also, exactly what would you do if I broke your CC provisions?

If I don’t know about it, nothing.

If I do know about it, politely ask you respect them, and keep my name in the code. Failing that, I’d use my blog to point out the problem.

Ultimately, my use of CC is for others to feel confident in it’s use since I was asked on more than one occasion ‘What rights do we have in using your code?’. The feeling that ‘I need to keep Jesse’s name & email in the code’ is more of an ancillary benefit. The effect of seeing my name & email in the code is good enough. If it’s deleted later, at least the user knew it was from me, and getting exposure is my main goal. This is what helped me get jobs & recognition in the industry in the first place.

The only time I’d consider legal action is if someone blatantly took it out, did little to no remixing, and became YouTube. Then I’d definately puruse legal recourse.

By: Burak KALAYCI

Burak KALAYCI — Thu, 25 Jan 2007 09:23:38 +0000

Hi Jesse,

I don’t know much about CC but after reading the FAQ, I’m quite confident that it can be used for source files which are text files. (‘Creative Commons licenses work well for all text materials.’).

Best regards,
Burak

By: Phillip Kerman

Phillip Kerman — Thu, 25 Jan 2007 08:48:31 +0000

This is interesting. Perhaps there are lawyers who can comment or even be contacted to help figure it out. Not like they’d necessarily know anything… it’d be a good start.

However since I’m not authorized to give legal advice I will anyway… I think that if you print an agreement in the code… distribute it… and then I read the agreement and we’re all in agreement on the meaning, then–in fact–it IS a contract. Naturally, either party could discover and point out a portion of the contract that is invalid. But I guess my point is that you can have a whacky agreement with someone else and you can both stick to it. Also, exactly what you do if I broke your CC provisions?

By: Josh Tynjala

Josh Tynjala — Thu, 25 Jan 2007 03:00:23 +0000

I’ve been using the MIT license on my code for a while now. I’ve considered BSD because MIT and BSD are considered basically equivilent, but the language in some parts is a little strange. There was some controversy recently in the open source community where someone intentionally misinterpreted a specific clause to make it ‘viral’ like the GPL and wrote a paper about it. It was dismissed almost unanimously as silly, but I remember re-reading that clause at one point way back when and thinking the same thing for just a second.

That explanation was too long. My point is, like you, I think the MIT license is ideal because it’s short, clear in its intentions, and it allows flexibility for users while keeping your name on the code.