Re: [sc-dev] its time for a User library

["Michael Hairston" <mhairston@xxxxxxxxx>]

re: the licensing thing, keep in mind that "Creative Commons license"
refers to a range of different licenses, from "free for any purpose"
to "pretty darn close to regular copyright control"

http://creativecommons.org



On 2/28/06, crucial felix <felix@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Feb 28, 2006, at 11:40 AM, Julian Rohrhuber wrote:
>
> > So a GPL-compatible licence should be added (to cover the use in
> > concerts, albums, films etc.) here I think cc is the right way; the
> > same applies to tutorials and papers, but should be optional in
> > order not to interfere with other publishers agreements.
>
> i get a bit confused above.
>
> for applications/programs we would like GPL
>
> for music etc. we would like CC
>
> many things are hard to classify :)
>
> for tutorials we would like CC but allow a different copyright to be
> stated on the individual document.
>
> I think with SF we can state that there are multiple licenses for the
> project.
>
> any individual document can state a specific copyright when it needs to.
>
> The only thing that is important to me is that people should be able
> to release music and perform it using things from here.  Credit
> should be given when there is print space suitable for that (or on
> the web).  Mostly people should enjoy stating that they used
> collaborative means to get a result.
>
> I have never liked it when you have to spend half your working day
> scrolling down past long inline copyright notices until you get to
> the code.
>
> There are some exciting things happening with web2.0 stuff.  Flickr
> mashups are looking great now, you can query the flickr server and
> match by shape or by color and get results.
> There are some sound repositories online, but none of them are
> dynamically queryable.
>
>
> -cx
> _______________________________________________
> sc-dev mailing list
> sc-dev@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> http://www.create.ucsb.edu/mailman/listinfo/sc-dev
>