Subject: Re: Open Content licenses
From: Rick Moen <rick@linuxmafia.com>
Date: Tue, 27 Apr 2004 11:41:17 -0700

Quoting Evan Prodromou (evan@wikitravel.org):

> I note that there's no current list of licenses made primarily for
> non-software works that follow the principles and spirit of Open
> Source software -- so-called "Open Content". 

You probably meant "...at the OSI Web site", but the above is part of
what my site's PerlHoo1[1] knowledgebase page on
http://linuxmafia.com/kb/Licensing_and_Law aims to cover.  (Suggested
additions welcomed.)

> I believe there are a number of Open Content licenses that would
> satisfy the Open Source Definition. Of particular interest to me are
> the Creative Commons licenses -- a suite of 11+ licenses with
> mix-and-match license elements for various uses.

I've found this the most-useful entry point to the CC licence
smorgasbord, and link to it from my knowledgebase:
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/

> I think that the following Creative Commons licenses could satisfy the
> Open Source Definition:
> 
>      Attribution (BSD-like)
>      Attribution-ShareAlike (GPL-like)
>      ShareAlike (GPL-like)

Concur.  (You'll notice that I allow access to material subject to my
knowledgebase's compilation copyright using CC's Attribution-ShareAlike
1.0 licence.)

[1] Neat CGI thing.  |'ve improved it a bit, and released changes at
http://linuxmafia.com/pub/linux/apps/


--
license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3