CSC 379:Week 2, Group 1: Difference between revisions

From Expertiza_Wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Line 105: Line 105:
===Adoption of license===
===Adoption of license===
; The Question : ''Should groups like media outlets who desire their content to be shared adopt licenses like creative commons to clarify and guarantee the protections they want to extend to the public?''
; The Question : ''Should groups like media outlets who desire their content to be shared adopt licenses like creative commons to clarify and guarantee the protections they want to extend to the public?''
'''nap''': I think there should be an emphasis on how CC licenses clarify what people can do with pages, and that CC licensing must be indicated, whereas copyright requires no notification


Yes the groups should adopt it blah blah blah.
Yes the groups should adopt it blah blah blah.

Revision as of 21:27, 14 July 2007

Creative Commons

Overview

Provisions of Creative Commons License

Based upon copyright protections, the various forms of the creative commons licenses allow the creator of a work to declare "some rights reserved" instead of the usual "all rights reserved" associated with plain copyright. This allows the creator of the original work to grant certain permissions to those who wish to use the original work without the prospective user having to explicitly ask for permission.

There are 4 conditions that make up the different Creative Commons licenses:

Attribution
All Creative Commons licenses require attribution as specified by the original work's creator when the work is used, distributed, or modified whether in its original form or as a derivative work.
Noncommercial
The original work may only be used, distributed, or modified only for noncommercial purposes whether the work is in its original form or as a derivative work.
No derivative works
The original work may be used or distributed, but may not be used in any form of derivative work.
Share alike
Derivative works based upon the original work may only be distributed under an identical license to the original work.

These conditions are combined in various forms to make the six main Creative Commons licenses:

  1. Attribution (by)
  2. Attribution Non-commerical (by-nc)
  3. Attribution Non-commercial Share Alike (by-nc-sa)
  4. Attribution Non-commercial No Derivatives (by-nc-nd)
  5. Attribution No Derivatives (by-nd)
  6. Attribution Share Alike (by-sa)


Links

Comparison to other common licenses

License Advantages Disadvantages Ethical Considerations
Creative Commons
  • Creator of work can grant specific permissions for re-use of work
  • Rights and conditions of others to use work are more clearly laid out
  • Based on copyright
  • Must be careful to choose appropriate license to retain the desired amount of control over the work
  • Must specifically designate work as licensed under Creative Commons
  • Users of Creative Commons-licensed works must be careful when combining works with different licenses
  • There is a disclaimer of warranty that the individual granting the license has the right to do so
  • Certain provisions of the license change between countries
Copyright
  • Automatically granted to created works, even without notice
  • Reserves all rights for the creator
  • Can cause confusion, since it applies without notice of copyright
  • Those wishing to reuse copyrighted works must seek explicit permission
  • Easy to violate copyright unintentionally, since notification of copyright is not required
GPL
  • Requires any modified and released versions to have source code available, and to stay under the GPL
  • Maintains free software environment
  • Based on copyright
  • Incompatible with closed-source (commercial) development
  • Once something is under the GPL, it essentially must stay under GPL
  • "Locked-in" to GPL
  • Forces ideology behind GPL on users of GPL'd content
Lesser GPL (LGPL)
  • Allows non-GPL software to link with LGPL'd libraries
  • Less restrictive than GPL
  • Based on copyright
  • Largely discouraged by GPL proponents
  • Allows free software to be used in proprietary projects
BSD-style Licenses
  • Non-copyleft - modified versions aren't required to be free, more flexible
  • Allows modified versions to be released under alternate licenses
  • Based on copyright
  • Modified versions can become incorporated into proprietary projects
  • Original BSD license had an annoying "advertisement" clause
  • Free code can be made proprietary
Public Domain
  • Work is released from copyright
  • Work can be used by anyone else without restriction
  • Any rights by the creator are forfeited
  • Creator retains no rights to work

Discussion Questions

Adoption of license

The Question
Should groups like media outlets who desire their content to be shared adopt licenses like creative commons to clarify and guarantee the protections they want to extend to the public?

nap: I think there should be an emphasis on how CC licenses clarify what people can do with pages, and that CC licensing must be indicated, whereas copyright requires no notification

Yes the groups should adopt it blah blah blah.

Some more stuff.

Blah blah blah.

Links (if applicable)

Ethical considerations / Obstacles to adoption

The Question
What ethical advantages and disadvantages are there for adopting Creative Commons licenses? What obstacles exist towards the adoption of Creative Commons licenses within the business community?

Ethical considerations of international usage

The Question
Copyright law differs between countries. Creative Commons has licenses that can be adapted to be compatible with the laws of many nations. What ethical considerations are there to a system of international copyright laws and/or agreements? Are licenses like Creative Commons viable alternatives to international agreements?
Retrieved from "https://wiki.expertiza.ncsu.edu/index.php?title=CSC_379:Week_2,_Group_1&oldid=1660"