Parametric license - Revision history

CCID-alexandertejthompson: Typo, found through search

2021-08-24T15:29:01Z

Typo, found through search

Ivan Lon: Category:License and CCPlus

2011-09-23T19:23:29Z

Category:License and CCPlus

Craig Hubley at 07:30, 8 February 2008

2008-02-08T07:30:38Z

Craig Hubley: category:license category:protocol

2008-02-08T07:29:01Z

category:license category:protocol

New page

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 licenses. 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 sofware 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]]

← Older revision		Revision as of 19:23, 23 September 2011
Line 20:		Line 20:
	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.		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]] [[category:protocol]] [[Category:License and CCPlus]]

@@ Line 14: / Line 14: @@
 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 sofware 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.''
+''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]].

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
 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 licenses.  The [[Creative Commons]] regime has relatively fewer options.
+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