Comments on: A Note on Licencing http://blog.oofn.net/2006/03/20/a-note-on-licencing/ You have found the home of Fri, 20 May 2011 01:18:44 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3 By: Jay Tuley http://blog.oofn.net/2006/03/20/a-note-on-licencing/comment-page-1/#comment-370 Jay Tuley Tue, 28 Mar 2006 02:08:05 +0000 http://blog.oofn.net/2006/03/20/a-note-on-licencing/#comment-370 <p>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</p> <p>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.</p> 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.

]]> By: Chad Weider http://blog.oofn.net/2006/03/20/a-note-on-licencing/comment-page-1/#comment-368 Chad Weider Thu, 23 Mar 2006 08:32:19 +0000 http://blog.oofn.net/2006/03/20/a-note-on-licencing/#comment-368 <p>Yup, that is pretty much my reasoning,</p> <p>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).</p> <p>But the <a href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.5/">CC license</a> 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).</p> 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).

]]> By: Michael Wren http://blog.oofn.net/2006/03/20/a-note-on-licencing/comment-page-1/#comment-367 Michael Wren Thu, 23 Mar 2006 07:45:16 +0000 http://blog.oofn.net/2006/03/20/a-note-on-licencing/#comment-367 <p>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.</p> <blockquote cite="http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/bsd.html">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.</blockquote> <p>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.</p> 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.

]]> By: Matt Ronge http://blog.oofn.net/2006/03/20/a-note-on-licencing/comment-page-1/#comment-364 Matt Ronge Tue, 21 Mar 2006 00:56:43 +0000 http://blog.oofn.net/2006/03/20/a-note-on-licencing/#comment-364 <p>So why did you go with the Creative Commons license instead of the BSD license? What are the differences between the two?</p> So why did you go with the Creative Commons license instead of the BSD license? What are the differences between the two?

]]>