Creative Commons - User contributions [en]

Parametric license

2021-08-24T15:29:01Z

CCID-alexandertejthompson: Typo, found through search

''The following is adapted from older content contributed by [[anonymous trolls]] in 2004. It has been only slightly modified.''

A '''parametric license''' is a [[license]] either mechanically generated or chosen from options and fill-in-the-blanks.
The [[Creative Commons Open Office extension]] for instance makes it easy to choose a CC license based on such input(s).

Commodity markets rely on many such [[parametrized contract]]s. The [[Creative Commons]] regime has relatively fewer options.
Legally, a distinct specific license emerges when the blanks are all filled in, and it may not necessarily be as easy to
understand or enforce as all the other possible licenses generated or chosen, though that would be an ideal outcome for
most users.

There is nothing preventing [[future]] Creative Commons licenses from having genuine blanks or options, though they should be numeric or chosen from short lists whose combinations can be handled predictably without requiring anyone to seek permission.
The [[CCplus]] and [[CC0]] [[protocol]]s are attempts to move in this direction.

Open Source originated due to the demand for some options that free software did not allow
for. Partly in response to this, even the [[GFDL]] has some ability to vary conditions, for Invariant Sections, Front-Cover Text and Back-Cover Text in particular. Strangely, some people object to these parameters as somehow being reflective of a ''lack'' of freedom, although its not clear why they want or need the "freedom" to alter authorship, institutional affiliations, at will.
''It's a common confusion to believe that free software and open source are merely differentiated by marketing approach. This is clearly not true. Free software is [[share alike]] and [[open source]] clearly is not. [[Creative Commons]] uses the [[copyleft]] symbol for share-alike to help make this clear to legally naive users.''

A more real-world pragmatic approach would rely more on '''parametric license'''s drawing on constraints from the real legal and political world, e.g. [[green license]], [[peace license]], [[human rights license]], [[science license]] or [[guild license]].

Current options won't work. For instance if someone refuses to give their work for free to the Pentagon they cannot write [[Free Software]] or "Open Source" or even use [[CC-by-nc-sa]] - but they can write [[Common Content]] sharable among a smaller group, which we might call [[guild content]] as opposed to [[open content]]. So what we have in [[Creative Commons Public License]] is a base of correct decisions from which to strike out in a different [[Share Alike]] focused direction, not the dead end of "open source" which just created issues with proliferation of versions and licenses and never brought in [[shareware]], [[guild]]s or [[union]]s, or the nonprofit groups that only want to share with each other.

[[category:license]] [[category:protocol]] [[Category:License and CCPlus]]

GFDL versus CC-by-sa

2021-08-24T13:43:36Z

CCID-alexandertejthompson: Typo

The [[GNU Free Documentation License]] (GFDL or GNU FDL) was made with the main purpose of being used for software documentation. [[CC-by-sa]] is intended for general sharing of "cultural works". The differences are quite technical, and the key principles are identical. The main difference is:

* Attribution - any copy of a work licensed under the GFDL must include a full copy of the license. That's not a big burden in software, but if someone is printing off a GFDL document, they are legally obliged to include a license printout which may be as long as the document. The CC-by-sa is much simpler, requiring attribution as requested by the source, which typically is the source's name (e.g. "Practical Action," "Appropedia" or "Jodie Smith"), perhaps a title, and a link.

Some advantages of CC-by-sa are:

* CC's human readable versions do a fair job of representing the conditions of use, in much clearer terms. Compare the [http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/ CC-by-sa] (human readable version) with the [http://www.gnu.org/licenses/fdl.txt GFDL].
* CC-by-sa has become the de facto license for web use, for those wanting similar conditions to the GFDL - used by Wikipedia and many other wikis, available as an option for Flickr and other content sharing sites. It's recognizable, and compatible with many other sites.

Note that the FSF, who manage the GFDL, did give permission during a certain window of time for wiki sites to relicense their content from GFDL to CC-by-sa. Wikipedia and Appropedia did this, among others. The FSF recognized that CC-by-sa gives a greater flexibility that is needed for wikis in particular (and some would say, for content sharing in general).

If you want to go with CC, there are other questions that would be considered, but it's probably overcomplicating things. But in the interests of thoroughness.

* Do you want to be even more open and use CC-by, without the "Share Alike" requirement? Possibly not, if you want to guarantee that you are able to incorporate modifications and additions by other people, when you want to; also, you can make that decision at any time later without affecting any of the CC-by-sa users of your content.
* Do you want to dual-license, letting people know they can use under the terms of either CC-by-sa or GFDL? Probably not, as it breaks your ability to use other people's work. I.e. If you want to incorporate a modification or addition done under only one license, you can't (in a strict legal sense) then take it and publish again under your dual license.

== See also ==

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Comparison_of_GFDL_and_CC-BY-SA Comparison of GFDL and CC-BY-SA] - an essay in Wikipedia's project space.

{{stub}}

'''NOTE: This is an adaptation from an email (7 March 2012) and needs to be thoroughly fact-checked, and have unfair aspects removed. It's written from a pro CC-by-sa perspective and might be unfair to the GFDL.'''
[[Category:Licenses]]

Cornell University – Math and Science Gateway

2021-08-24T13:40:07Z

CCID-alexandertejthompson: Copyedit

{{Organization
|Status=good
|Open or Free Statement=no
|License provider=
|License=
|Resource URL=
|Affiliation=Center for Advanced Computing,Cornell University
|Tag=Secondary education, Science, Math, Educator resources
|Mainurl=http://www.tc.cornell.edu/services/education/gateways/math_and_science
|Organization Type=University
|License short name=copyright
}}