7 ms·

I just created a project using CC4.0 last weekend and I noticed that GitHub didn't have it in the list of suggested license you can choose. When I added it man

by joeblau 10y ago

I just created a project using CC4.0 last weekend and I noticed that GitHub didn't have it in the list of suggested license you can choose. When I added it manually, GitHub did recognize it which I thought was awkward. It seems like GitHub is already trying to steer users away from creating the types of repositories they don't want to support in the TOS.

duskwuff 10y ago
Depends on what kind of project you're working on. Creative Commons is not especially appropriate for software licensing, so it's perfectly sensible for GitHub to avoid recommending it. This isn't just my personal opinion, by the way. The CC FAQ specifically says: > We recommend against using Creative Commons licenses for software. Instead, we strongly encourage you to use one of the very good software licenses which are already available. We recommend considering licenses made available by the Free Software Foundation or listed as “open source” by the Open Source Initiative. -- https://creativecommons.org/faq/#can-i-apply-a-creative-commons-license-to-software https://creativecommons.org/faq/#can-i-apply-a-creative-comm...
- eikenberry 10y ago
  With the exception of CC0, of which there is no equivalent available and which they do say is suitable for software.
  - eridius 10y ago
    CC0 looks to be equivalent to the WTFPL.
    - azrazalea 10y ago
      More likely to be legally upheld in court though IMHO
      - mirabilos 10y ago
        True. But CC0 is deprecated by CC themselves and CC requested the OSI to not approve it. It is unclear whether there will be a successor. But any of the BSD/MIT-ish licences should be close enough to a “gift” for this to work (well they do protect the author/licensor a bit more, but…).
        incongruousa 10y ago
        > CC0 is deprecated by CC themselves As far as I can tell this is simply false. At https://creativecommons.org/retiredlicenses/ https://creativecommons.org/retiredlicenses/ there is a list of "retired" (deprecated) legal tools, which does include a "Public Domain Dedication and Certification" but in the right column says "Replaced by two separate tools: the CC0 Public Domain Dedication and the Public Domain Mark." Furthermore, at the top of the page it says "CC will no longer offer these licenses via its license chooser or other mechanism for any future work" and if you click on the link (https://creativecommons.org/choose/ https://creativecommons.org/choose/) there is a "Want public domain instead?" link to https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/ https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/ which prominently features the CC0 dedication. So you can see that CC0 is still recommended it and it is in current use. Mike Linksvayer (former VP of Creative Commons) uses and recommends it: http://gondwanaland.com/mlog/2013/11/25/upgrade-to-0/ http://gondwanaland.com/mlog/2013/11/25/upgrade-to-0/ > CC requested the OSI to not approve it I actually read through the OSI mailing list thread about the CC0 dedication once, and as far as I recall the OSI people (I think it was Bruce Perens) had reservations and eventually the CC side decided it wasn't worth pursuing, see https://opensource.org/faq#cc-zero https://opensource.org/faq#cc-zero for the OSI summary.
  - garaetjjte 10y ago
    Maybe Unlicense? http://unlicense.org/ http://unlicense.org/

by joeblau 10y ago

duskwuff 10y ago

Depends on what kind of project you're working on. Creative Commons is not especially appropriate for software licensing, so it's perfectly sensible for GitHub to avoid recommending it. This isn't just my personal opinion, by the way. The CC FAQ specifically says: > We recommend against using Creative Commons licenses for software. Instead, we strongly encourage you to use one of the very good software licenses which are already available. We recommend considering licenses made available by the Free Software Foundation or listed as “open source” by the Open Source Initiative. -- https://creativecommons.org/faq/#can-i-apply-a-creative-commons-license-to-software https://creativecommons.org/faq/#can-i-apply-a-creative-comm...

eikenberry 10y ago
With the exception of CC0, of which there is no equivalent available and which they do say is suitable for software.
- eridius 10y ago
  CC0 looks to be equivalent to the WTFPL.
  - azrazalea 10y ago
    More likely to be legally upheld in court though IMHO
    - mirabilos 10y ago
      True. But CC0 is deprecated by CC themselves and CC requested the OSI to not approve it. It is unclear whether there will be a successor. But any of the BSD/MIT-ish licences should be close enough to a “gift” for this to work (well they do protect the author/licensor a bit more, but…).
      - incongruousa 10y ago
        > CC0 is deprecated by CC themselves As far as I can tell this is simply false. At https://creativecommons.org/retiredlicenses/ https://creativecommons.org/retiredlicenses/ there is a list of "retired" (deprecated) legal tools, which does include a "Public Domain Dedication and Certification" but in the right column says "Replaced by two separate tools: the CC0 Public Domain Dedication and the Public Domain Mark." Furthermore, at the top of the page it says "CC will no longer offer these licenses via its license chooser or other mechanism for any future work" and if you click on the link (https://creativecommons.org/choose/ https://creativecommons.org/choose/) there is a "Want public domain instead?" link to https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/ https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/ which prominently features the CC0 dedication. So you can see that CC0 is still recommended it and it is in current use. Mike Linksvayer (former VP of Creative Commons) uses and recommends it: http://gondwanaland.com/mlog/2013/11/25/upgrade-to-0/ http://gondwanaland.com/mlog/2013/11/25/upgrade-to-0/ > CC requested the OSI to not approve it I actually read through the OSI mailing list thread about the CC0 dedication once, and as far as I recall the OSI people (I think it was Bruce Perens) had reservations and eventually the CC side decided it wasn't worth pursuing, see https://opensource.org/faq#cc-zero https://opensource.org/faq#cc-zero for the OSI summary.
- garaetjjte 10y ago
  Maybe Unlicense? http://unlicense.org/ http://unlicense.org/