A Note on Licencing

Copyright symbol

So recently I’ve had a few questions coming in about the whole licensing/code usage thing… And so I figure probably is about time that I make some sorta post clarifying that stuff.

Anyway, getting straight to the point, all the content here (unless otherwise noted) is open, and under the Creative Commons Attribution License. That is to say, anybody can use my work for any reason – I only ask that they give credit where credit is due.

However, I am more than sympathetic with developers who are not too keen on marring that nice, simple, straightforward about box with attributions and the like (I am one of them). So I am more than willing to waive that whole attribution thing (No, that doesn’t mean money – just asking nicely is good enough for me).

The big thing is that I want developers to be able to focus their efforts on what makes their app unique – not expending all their time making it conform. To the extent I can make that possible, I feel that I’ve helped.

4 Responses to “A Note on Licencing”

  1. Matt Ronge says:

    So why did you go with the Creative Commons license instead of the BSD license? What are the differences between the two?

  2. Michael Wren says:

    The third clause of the 4 clause or “original BSD license” makes it do what Chad wants it to do, and has been frowned upon by the authors of the original BSD license.

    3. All advertising materials mentioning features or use of this software must display the following acknowledgement: This product includes software developed by the University of California, Berkeley and its contributors.

    I honestly don’t know much about Document license like the GNU FDL, so I don’t know how they behave, and a CC license may be more appropriate.

  3. Chad Weider says:

    Yup, that is pretty much my reasoning,

    The BSD license with that advertising clause and whatnot is just too complicated for me (it seems that that clause effectively makes each individual license different – which is a huge mess).

    But the CC license seems to be much more simple, straight forward, and clear (granted there is a lot of extra legal code beneath it – but that’s not necessary if all you want to do is understand the license).

  4. Jay Tuley says:

    Creative Commons is bad for code. I’ve just posted 5 reasons why you probably shouldn’t use it for code on my blog http://www.indyjt.com/blog/?p=85

    BTW the BSD license doesn’t have the advertising clause anymore, and when it did, everyone used a modified license with out it, so no one assumes the BSD license has the advertising clause anymore, but even it that sounds confusing you can use the MIT or U of I License which are the same thing, but have never had the advertising clause. All of them require that any resulting application or framework give you proper attribution for your code.

Leave a Reply