Asp Forum - Re: New presentation on Ruby

Gregory Brown

3/31/2007 1:02:00 AM

On 3/30/07, Chauk-Mean P <chauk.mean@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi all,

Hi. There is no such thing as the Creative Commons License.

Creative Commons maintains a number of licenses, and there is only one
that is actually public domain:

http://creativecommons.org/licenses/pub...

You should be sure to link the actual license you are using, and
unless you actually intended to use the public domain license, you
might consider something like the sharealike and attribute license,
which allows you to retain more rights over your work while still
giving people their freedom.

http://creativecommons.org/licenses/...

If you intended to use the CC Public Domain License and just left out
the link, and understand the implications of releasing works into the
public domain rather than under a free documentation license with some
rights reserved, ignore this and thank you for your kindness. :)

21 Answers

Eleanor McHugh

3/31/2007 2:27:00 AM

On 31 Mar 2007, at 02:02, Gregory Brown wrote:
> On 3/30/07, Chauk-Mean P <chauk.mean@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Hi all,
>
> Hi. There is no such thing as the Creative Commons License.
>
> Creative Commons maintains a number of licenses, and there is only one
> that is actually public domain:
>
> http://creativecommons.org/licenses/pub...
>
> You should be sure to link the actual license you are using, and
> unless you actually intended to use the public domain license, you
> might consider something like the sharealike and attribute license,
> which allows you to retain more rights over your work while still
> giving people their freedom.
>
> http://creativecommons.org/licenses/...
>
> If you intended to use the CC Public Domain License and just left out
> the link, and understand the implications of releasing works into the
> public domain rather than under a free documentation license with some
> rights reserved, ignore this and thank you for your kindness. :)

Alternately if your main concern is attribution for your work, you
might like to use a variant of the Anarchic Ownership License (http://
www.toxic-frock.tv/anarchicownershi.html) which whilst probably
flawed does a good job of getting the point across that:

a. you wrote your stuff;
b. other people can use your stuff;
c. they must credit you for creating it.

Of course now some clever bugger will point out how flawed it is, and
doubtless several thousand others will use up my server bandwidth for
the month ;)

Ellie

Being and Doing are merely useful abstractions for the 'time'-
dependent asymmetries of phase space.

Gregory Brown

3/31/2007 2:52:00 AM

On 3/30/07, Eleanor McHugh <eleanor@games-with-brains.com> wrote:
> On 31 Mar 2007, at 02:02, Gregory Brown wrote:
> > On 3/30/07, Chauk-Mean P <chauk.mean@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> Hi all,
> >
> > Hi. There is no such thing as the Creative Commons License.
> >
> > Creative Commons maintains a number of licenses, and there is only one
> > that is actually public domain:
> >
> > http://creativecommons.org/licenses/pub...
> >
> > You should be sure to link the actual license you are using, and
> > unless you actually intended to use the public domain license, you
> > might consider something like the sharealike and attribute license,
> > which allows you to retain more rights over your work while still
> > giving people their freedom.
> >
> > http://creativecommons.org/licenses/...
> >
> > If you intended to use the CC Public Domain License and just left out
> > the link, and understand the implications of releasing works into the
> > public domain rather than under a free documentation license with some
> > rights reserved, ignore this and thank you for your kindness. :)
>
> Alternately if your main concern is attribution for your work, you
> might like to use a variant of the Anarchic Ownership License (http://
> www.toxic-frock.tv/anarchicownershi.html) which whilst probably
> flawed does a good job of getting the point across that:
>
> a. you wrote your stuff;
> b. other people can use your stuff;
> c. they must credit you for creating it.
>
> Of course now some clever bugger will point out how flawed it is, and
> doubtless several thousand others will use up my server bandwidth for
> the month ;)

Standard licensing choices are better. Ellie, is this what you're looking for?
http://creativecommons.org/licens...

Chad Perrin

3/31/2007 3:26:00 AM

On Sat, Mar 31, 2007 at 11:52:21AM +0900, Gregory Brown wrote:
>
> Standard licensing choices are better. Ellie, is this what you're looking
> for?
> http://creativecommons.org/licens...

Most likely, one would choose the attribution/share-alike, rather than
simply a pure attribution license. The difference is that with a share-
alike license, the terms (in this case, attribution) are inherited by
all derivative works, while with the "pure" attribution license that is
not necessarily the case. The link:
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/...

I personally had some issues with the by-sa (attribution/share-alike)
license, related to weird prohibitions against technical means of
controlling copying and so on. That was part of the reason that I
eventually created my own license -- one that I pretty much use for
everything I do, as long as it wasn't commissioned by someone with
assignment of copyright stipulated in the conditions of the contract.

--
CCD CopyWrite Chad Perrin [ http://ccd.ap... ]
Ben Franklin: "As we enjoy great Advantages from the Inventions of
others we should be glad of an Opportunity to serve others by any
Invention of ours, and this we should do freely and generously."

Gregory Brown

3/31/2007 4:55:00 AM

On 3/30/07, Chad Perrin <perrin@apotheon.com> wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 31, 2007 at 11:52:21AM +0900, Gregory Brown wrote:
> >
> > Standard licensing choices are better. Ellie, is this what you're looking
> > for?
> > http://creativecommons.org/licens...
>
> Most likely, one would choose the attribution/share-alike, rather than
> simply a pure attribution license. The difference is that with a share-
> alike license, the terms (in this case, attribution) are inherited by
> all derivative works, while with the "pure" attribution license that is
> not necessarily the case. The link:
> http://creativecommons.org/licenses/...

If you read up in the thread I already recommended this. I was just
offering an alternative to writing your own license if all you want is
attribution and indemnification.

> I personally had some issues with the by-sa (attribution/share-alike)
> license, related to weird prohibitions against technical means of
> controlling copying and so on. That was part of the reason that I
> eventually created my own license -- one that I pretty much use for
> everything I do, as long as it wasn't commissioned by someone with
> assignment of copyright stipulated in the conditions of the contract.

Bad idea for community friendly projects. I don't want to learn your
license if there is a standard license I can live with, that other
people will be likely to understand, too.

Chad Perrin

3/31/2007 6:05:00 AM

On Sat, Mar 31, 2007 at 01:54:51PM +0900, Gregory Brown wrote:
> On 3/30/07, Chad Perrin <perrin@apotheon.com> wrote:
> >On Sat, Mar 31, 2007 at 11:52:21AM +0900, Gregory Brown wrote:
> >>
> >> Standard licensing choices are better. Ellie, is this what you're
> >looking
> >> for?
> >> http://creativecommons.org/licens...
> >
> >Most likely, one would choose the attribution/share-alike, rather than
> >simply a pure attribution license. The difference is that with a share-
> >alike license, the terms (in this case, attribution) are inherited by
> >all derivative works, while with the "pure" attribution license that is
> >not necessarily the case. The link:
> > http://creativecommons.org/licenses/...
>
> If you read up in the thread I already recommended this. I was just
> offering an alternative to writing your own license if all you want is
> attribution and indemnification.

I wasn't referring to writing your own license. The attribution/share-
alike license is a standard CC license, as indicated at the URL I
provided.

>
> >I personally had some issues with the by-sa (attribution/share-alike)
> >license, related to weird prohibitions against technical means of
> >controlling copying and so on. That was part of the reason that I
> >eventually created my own license -- one that I pretty much use for
> >everything I do, as long as it wasn't commissioned by someone with
> >assignment of copyright stipulated in the conditions of the contract.
>
> Bad idea for community friendly projects. I don't want to learn your
> license if there is a standard license I can live with, that other
> people will be likely to understand, too.

Good for you.

1. I tend to dual-license whenever anyone really wants it.

2. I choose the license I do specifically because I often don't care to
"live with" other extant licenses. It wasn't a capricious decision. It
was a decision born of frustration. In any case, the license I created
was designed with simplicity in mind -- and if you can get along with
Creative Common license term legal text (byzantine and stilted phrasing)
then you'll have no problem with what I use.

--
CCD CopyWrite Chad Perrin [ http://ccd.ap... ]
Leon Festinger: "A man with a conviction is a hard man to change. Tell
him you disagree and he turns away. Show him facts and figures and he
questions your sources. Appeal to logic and he fails to see your point."

Chad Perrin

3/31/2007 6:42:00 AM

On Sat, Mar 31, 2007 at 03:21:54PM +0900, Chauk-Mean P wrote:
> 2007/3/31, Gregory Brown <gregory.t.brown@gmail.com>:
>
> >If you intended to use the CC Public Domain License and just left out
> >>the link, and understand the implications of releasing works into the
> >>public domain rather than under a free documentation license with some
> >>rights reserved, ignore this and thank you for your kindness. :)
>
> I released the presentation with the CC Public Domain License for the
> benefit of the Ruby community :-) !

Excellent. I'm a fan of public domain -- except for the fact that it's
not necessarily hereditary for derivative works. That's a minor
annoyance, however, as it's not directly offensive like some other
licensing terms I've encountered.

--
CCD CopyWrite Chad Perrin [ http://ccd.ap... ]
print substr("Just another Perl hacker", 0, -2);

Eleanor McHugh

3/31/2007 9:43:00 AM

On 31 Mar 2007, at 03:52, Gregory Brown wrote:
> On 3/30/07, Eleanor McHugh <eleanor@games-with-brains.com> wrote:
>> Alternately if your main concern is attribution for your work, you
>> might like to use a variant of the Anarchic Ownership License
>> (http://
>> www.toxic-frock.tv/anarchicownershi.html) which whilst probably
>> flawed does a good job of getting the point across that:
>>
>> a. you wrote your stuff;
>> b. other people can use your stuff;
>> c. they must credit you for creating it.
>>
>> Of course now some clever bugger will point out how flawed it is, and
>> doubtless several thousand others will use up my server bandwidth for
>> the month ;)
>
> Standard licensing choices are better. Ellie, is this what you're
> looking for?
> http://creativecommons.org/licens...

I much prefer my wording ;)

Ellie

Eleanor McHugh
Games With Brains
----
raise ArgumentError unless @reality.responds_to? :reason

Gregory Brown

3/31/2007 1:49:00 PM

On 3/31/07, Chad Perrin <perrin@apotheon.com> wrote:

> I wasn't referring to writing your own license. The attribution/share-
> alike license is a standard CC license, as indicated at the URL I
> provided.

Please read upwards more carefully.
http://blade.nagaokaut.ac.jp/cgi-bin/scat.rb/ruby/ruby-t...

> > Bad idea for community friendly projects. I don't want to learn your
> > license if there is a standard license I can live with, that other
> > people will be likely to understand, too.
>
> Good for you.

No need to be rude.

> 1. I tend to dual-license whenever anyone really wants it.

Dual licensing is an acceptable way to provide both your terms and a
more standard set of terms, but it's not ideal. It means if I want to
contribute back to you, I still need to understand your home grown
license, which, at least in my case, means you'd be less likely to see
contributions from me.

> 2. I choose the license I do specifically because I often don't care to
> "live with" other extant licenses. It wasn't a capricious decision. It
> was a decision born of frustration. In any case, the license I created
> was designed with simplicity in mind -- and if you can get along with
> Creative Common license term legal text (byzantine and stilted phrasing)
> then you'll have no problem with what I use.

Except that I don't want yet another license to remember.

Chad Perrin

3/31/2007 5:08:00 PM

On Sat, Mar 31, 2007 at 10:49:26PM +0900, Gregory Brown wrote:
> On 3/31/07, Chad Perrin <perrin@apotheon.com> wrote:
>
> >I wasn't referring to writing your own license. The attribution/share-
> >alike license is a standard CC license, as indicated at the URL I
> >provided.
>
> Please read upwards more carefully.
> http://blade.nagaokaut.ac.jp/cgi-bin/scat.rb/ruby/ruby-t...

I'll just take it as a given that I'd forgotten about that bit, then. I
don't really feel like verifying the entire chain of discussion -- but
you have definitely pointed out the fact that you mentioned by-sa
already. Mea culpa.

>
> >> Bad idea for community friendly projects. I don't want to learn your
> >> license if there is a standard license I can live with, that other
> >> people will be likely to understand, too.
> >
> >Good for you.
>
> No need to be rude.

Funny -- "Good for you." was my way of saying "No need to be rude."

>
> >1. I tend to dual-license whenever anyone really wants it.
>
> Dual licensing is an acceptable way to provide both your terms and a
> more standard set of terms, but it's not ideal. It means if I want to
> contribute back to you, I still need to understand your home grown
> license, which, at least in my case, means you'd be less likely to see
> contributions from me.

So sorry. If I don't like the license you'd rather use, it's not the
license I'm going to use. That's pretty much tautological.

>
> >2. I choose the license I do specifically because I often don't care to
> >"live with" other extant licenses. It wasn't a capricious decision. It
> >was a decision born of frustration. In any case, the license I created
> >was designed with simplicity in mind -- and if you can get along with
> >Creative Common license term legal text (byzantine and stilted phrasing)
> >then you'll have no problem with what I use.
>
> Except that I don't want yet another license to remember.

What, exactly, is this supposed to mean to my lack of satisfaction with
certain other licenses?

--
CCD CopyWrite Chad Perrin [ http://ccd.ap... ]
unix virus: If you're using a unixlike OS, please forward
this to 20 others and erase your system partition.

Chad Perrin

3/31/2007 5:10:00 PM

On Sat, Mar 31, 2007 at 06:42:33PM +0900, Eleanor McHugh wrote:
> On 31 Mar 2007, at 03:52, Gregory Brown wrote:
> >On 3/30/07, Eleanor McHugh <eleanor@games-with-brains.com> wrote:
> >>Alternately if your main concern is attribution for your work, you
> >>might like to use a variant of the Anarchic Ownership License
> >>(http://
> >>www.toxic-frock.tv/anarchicownershi.html) which whilst probably
> >>flawed does a good job of getting the point across that:
> >>
> >>a. you wrote your stuff;
> >>b. other people can use your stuff;
> >>c. they must credit you for creating it.
> >>
> >>Of course now some clever bugger will point out how flawed it is, and
> >>doubtless several thousand others will use up my server bandwidth for
> >>the month ;)
> >
> >Standard licensing choices are better. Ellie, is this what you're
> >looking for?
> >http://creativecommons.org/licens...
>
> I much prefer my wording ;)

Yours is certainly more amusing -- and easier to grasp. There are a
couple of potential legal ambiguities in there, but nothing ambiguous
in terms of your intentions, as far as I can see.

Note: IANAL (obviously)

--
CCD CopyWrite Chad Perrin [ http://ccd.ap... ]
Amazon.com interview candidate: "When C++ is your
hammer, everything starts to look like your thumb."

comp.lang.ruby

Re: New presentation on Ruby

Gregory Brown

Eleanor McHugh

Gregory Brown

Chad Perrin

Gregory Brown

Chad Perrin

Chad Perrin

Eleanor McHugh

Gregory Brown

Chad Perrin

Chad Perrin

x Login to ForumsZone