What is Digg?10 Comments
- djseligman, on 10/12/2007, -0/+30Detailed license update information here:
http://creativecommons.org/weblog/entry/7249 - Alexx3k, on 10/12/2007, -0/+14Good call, link clicking through blogs is getting tiresome
- kingmad, on 10/12/2007, -0/+8I don't think there's any nefarious intent to that. A lot of people get updates on stuff from news aggregation sites like boing boing. And I think if their the ones who got the word out to you, then it's only fair to give them the link props for their efforts.
/my 2¢ - JAppi, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6Interesting how /. can link directly to the changes, but on Digg you get a link to a blog that sources /.
- EverySam, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4Creative Commons is a disaster.
Jonathan Coulton's songs are released under CC-NC-BY-SA 2.5. That means I can only use them in works that are also CC-NC-BY-SA 2.5. So if someone on Jamendo (or whatever) releases a song under CC-BY-SA 2.5, I can't make a mashup of them with either license. I can't make a movie, under any license, that contains both songs. That "open movie" Elephants Dream that was all over digg/slashdot was released under CC-BY, but its soundtrack was released under CC-NC-ND, so I can't mix the existing soundtrack with Coulton's or whoever's music.
In fact, this whole fad of having hundreds of different "licenses" from every company with slightly different wording is completely ruining the spirit of freedom and the internet. Wikipedia is released under the GFDL. I can't print out an article and distribute it without attaching the entire text of the GFDL. That's a free open-content encyclopedia? Same with Wikibooks. Meanwhile, MIT's OpenCourseWare is released under CC-BY-NC-SA 2.5, so I can't combine a Wikipedia article with an MIT "open course". I can't include pictures from DeviantArt or Flickr if they're released under any other license.
The whole thing is so crazy and short-sighted.
We only need three licenses, and they are completely compatible in one direction:
a public domain license, saying that you can do whatever you want with it;
the BSD (a.k.a. MIT) license, which requires attribution to the original authors, but is otherwise free;
and the GPL, the share-alike license which allows for commercial use (but prevents you from getting screwed, by forcing commercial sellers to also offer a free version).
Before you ask what the hell I'm talking about, yes, you can release art (books, pictures, or anything else) under the GPL (and BSD, obviously). And you should choose that over any Creative Commons licenses. http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#GPLOtherThanSoftware
Already so much content exists under the GPL that it's crazy to prevent your "open content" from being used in it. - jongos, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2I'm glad the CCL is finally addressing DRM.
- obezyana, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I somewhat agree with you, but i think most (if not all) of the problems with Creative Commons could be solved by just ditching the SA part of the license. The BY is perfectly reasonable; whoever started it should get credit. NC is good for some stuff and not so good for other stuff. A ND CC license is still less controlling than straight copyright because you can still make a direct copy and pass it on without having to worry about some **AA trying to sue you (so you can't mix it with anything else… no big. You couldn't mix it with anything else if it was under the copyright that most people use, either). It's just SA that strikes me as ridiculous because it's entirely unecessary with a ND license and if someone's going to be creative with a pre-existing product, they should also have the right to get a wee bit of choice in the licensing, and like you mentioned it makes it just about impossible to do anything with two different things under two different licenses.
Personally i prefer CC over the other licenses you mentioned because it's easier to pick and choose what rights the author wants to keep (as far as i can tell anyway), and you can have it vary to be pretty much anything from almost PD to almost full copyright (without that "This is ©whoever but you're allowed to redistribute it to whoever you want anyway as long as you don't edit it" or "You can do whatever you want with this but please link me in the creds" stuff i see so often).
So i would say, even if you count full copyright as a license, we need five, tops (PD, BSD, GPL, © for whatever anyone wants full control over, and CC to catch whatever isn't easily covered by the other four). I don't think it's possible for any other license to allow or prohibit any rights that aren't covered by those five, unless someone starts making up new rights sometime soon (i actually wouldn't mind a "NC except if used by a charity organisation" license - i think CC has something almost like that, where people in a developing country are allowed to do a bit more than people in already-developed nations are with certain CC licenses - but otherwise, i think just about all the possible rights have already been put into licenses.) - Mootabolife, on 10/12/2007, -6/+3People have to feed their children, so blog away.
Browsing Digg on your phone just got easier with our enhancements to the 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is