[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > Creative Commons creates a legal equivalent of public domain where it doesn't > already exist. At that point, Microsoft can use it, improve / harm it in any > way they like, take all the credit, and turn a profit. It's essentially a > license to relicense it under your own name.
Well, there are varying levels of Creative Commons. Those things I have licensed under Creative Commons I have used the "With Attribution" version. However, the golden rule pretty much applies to all intellectual property disputes ... he who has the gold, makes the rules. In other words, despite the flimsiness of many of Microsoft's cases in courts, they still can threaten people who most likely will back off rather than spend their own money defending themselves. Only an entity of substantial size, like IBM, the US Federal government, or Sun in reality has a chance of winning such a battle. And really, if somebody somehow manages to make money off my MP3s of random music in the Harry Partch 43-tone microtonal scale, even if they *don't* give me credit I'm not going to care all that much -- it's a hobby and I make a good living doing other stuff. :) > BSD (modified) and MIT add only the requirement that you preserve the license. So, they can be included by anything and modified at will. Changes may be released under incompatible licenses. I don't have a problem with that, because I only have to maintain what *I* have created, not "derivative works". :) I think if someone takes a germ of an idea from a piece of software I came up with and builds it into something substantial and valuable, he is entitled to all of the fruits of his labors. That's essentially how the capitalist world works anyhow -- *anybody* can get a great idea, but it's the *execution* and the *implementation* of it that matters. > GPL licensed code imposes severe restrictions on those who modify the code: > * changes must be released under GPL > * anybody who distributes (with the exception of p2p like bittorrent, for > v3) binaries must also distribute source And indeed, when I work with GPL software, I generally don't *make* changes or distribute binaries. I suggest changes sometimes, and I only distribute my creations in source form, with the exception of a few MP3s that were created by my algorithmic composition codes. The codes are of course GPL if they were derived from GPL software, Artistic if they are in Perl, Ruby if they are in Ruby, etc. And the MP3s are Creative Commons with Attribution. --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ To post to this group, send email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel URLs: http://sage.scipy.org/sage/ and http://modular.math.washington.edu/sage/ -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
