Re: 16.11.2007-10:09:45 :: Remember, remember, the velvet November


node:	Re: 16.11.2007-10:09:45
template:	4
parent:	16.11.2007-10:09:45
owner:	ventYl
viewed by:
created:	16.11.2007 - 10:12:54

cwbe coordinatez:
809096
1483077
3490497
3490510

ABSOLUT
KYBERIA

permissions
you:	r,
system:	public
net:	yes

ja myslim, ze prave creative commons by sa na to hodilo, kedze creative commons nie je jedina licencia, ale cela sada licencii a tam si mozes na niektorych zakladnych kamenoch postavit licenciu, aku chces. a tusim je aj OSI-approved. Bezne sa tusim pouziva aj na software.

0080909601483077034904970349051003490926

http://za.creativecommons.org/commons-sense/dec2004.htm

According to Creative Commons Canada, there are, in fact, only two cc licences that would qualify as 'open source' if they were applied to software: the Attribution and the Attribution-ShareAlike licenses. The other four permutations containing the requirement of "no derivatives" and/or "no commercial use" wouldn't qualify because they don't allow users to make changes to the work or to charge for its use (GPL allows authors to charge nominal fees for reproducing CDs of the software etc).

znamena ze na dielo zalozene na open-source softveri sa moze pouzit len "attribution" alebo "attribution-sharealike" aby to nebolo v konflikte s GPL ? cize napriklad pouzit "non-commercial" by bolo v rozpore s GPL aj ked mne by neslo o zakaz komercneho pozuivania jednotlivych programov samozrejme, ale celeho "diela", nemusim ani ja mat poziadavku komercneho vyzitia ale hlavne nechcem aby to na komercne ucely vyuzivala (teoreticky) nejaka spolocnost

008090960148307703490497034905100349092603496752

pri derivovanych pracach je pravidlo, ze nova praca nemoze rozsirovat prava povodnej (napriklad nemozes dat CC na copyrightovany material, alebo non-attribution na attribution material), mozes bud ponechat povodnu licenciu, alebo ju zuzit (napr pouzijes attribution na non-attribution material). takze ak skladas softver z modulov, ktore maju rozne licencie, vztahuje sa nan tiez toto pravidlo.

CC vyhovuje aj licencovaniu softveru - existuje napriklad aj licencia CC GPL - http://creativecommons.org/license/cc-gpl

takze soft mozes dalej distribuovat ako GPL s poznamkou ze tvoj modul/plugin spada pod CC attribution non-commercial (napr.)

co ma napriklad hned teraz napada ako iny priklad - wordpress.org je sireny ako GPL, a pluginy don su tiez GPL, ale obsahuju aj meno autora (v samotnom kode, aj na webe odkial sa stahuju)

008090960148307703490497034905100349092603491391

http://www.linux.com/feature/119212

CC licenses and the GPL

Luckily, when determining which CC licenses permit a work to be combined with GPL software, there are far fewer choices.

The Non-commercial and No Derivatives elements both conflict with the FSF's free software definition, so no license that includes either of these is compatible with the GPL.

The Non-commercial element restricts the licensee's right to use the licensed work in a commercial setting; this conflicts with the free software definition's "freedom zero" -- the freedom to run the program, for any purpose. The No Derivatives element restricts the licensee's right to change the licensed work, which conflicts with both freedom one (the freedom to "adapt it to your needs") and freedom three (the freedom to "improve the program and release your improvements to the public").

ako dosiahnut aby GPL softver pouzity v nejakom celku, tak ten celok nebol povoleny na komercne pouzitie ? softver neznamena len zdrojovy kod ale ked sa pospaja viac programov vznikne aj nieco ine ako len subor programov.