OSL vs Creative Commons

[Dave Fancella <david.fancella@comcast.net>]

All,

Well, I don't want to be a sheep, but GNU says to use Creative Commons for 
non-software creative stuff:
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/licenses.html#OtherWorks

I read the Open Source License again, and I read through the legalese version 
of the Creative Commons license I picked that would be most suitable for my 
own work, and I couldn't see much of a semantic difference.  I'm not even in 
a position to guess which would stand up best in court if it came down to it.

So instead I went looking for the answer to my question, "Do the Creative 
Commons people work with the Open Source Initiative, and if not, why not?"  I 
didn't find an answer, unless you read between the lines (always dangerous 
because you're likely to make bad conclusions).

What I found, besides the GNU page, was that the Creative Commons people are 
basically trying to make GPL for non-software creative stuff.  The OSI is 
focused on software, even though their own license is written to be 
independent of the type of creative work.  I think they use the term 
"Creative Work" because that is a specific legal term, rather than "Software" 
which is a specific technical term recognized by law.  (not sure what the 
difference between the two is, though)

So, anyway, it appears that the Creative Commons and the OSI don't work with 
each other at all, and it appears that this is an extension of the Free 
Software vs Open Source feud that still doesn't make any sense to me.

Here's some of those things they call Quick facts:  ;)

Creative Commons is based at Stanford Law, but they're not Standford Law.  
They share staff, equipment, and stuff, and Standford Law is a supporter, but 
they're an independent group.

OSI is an independent non-profit organization similar to the FSF, only headed 
by Eric Raymond instead of Richard Stallman, making them just as nutty as the 
FSF I suppose.  Heh.

So, there doesn't appear to be any semantic differences between the two 
licenses, and I'm not able to determine which is the stronger license, and 
it's not that important to me anyway.  ;)

So, here's what I want for the music I make:

1.  Anybody can copy it for anybody else
2.  They always give me credit for making it (for better or for worse, if it's 
that bad I wouldn't release it anyway, heh)
3.  If someone uses it to make money, they give me credit
4.  If someone uses it to make another piece of music (derivative work), they 
give me credit, and they use the same license for the music they made that 
uses mine (the share-alike part of the GPL and the Creative Commons)
5.  Nobody gets sued for listening to it, copying it, or making it better.  If 
they make it worse I'll just shoot 'em, so that's not a problem either.  ;)

So, from my point of view I'm not swayed to pick one over the other, since it 
looks like it would be the same as picking sides in the Free Software vs. 
Open Source blood feud, and I'm not picking sides in that.  So you guys will 
have to decide which you prefer for the soundtrack, and I'll go with that.  
It's not that big of a deal to me.  ;)

Here's the Creative Commons license I picked:
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/1.0/

Dave

-- 
Visit my website!
http://www.davefancella.com/?event=em

I never forget a face, but in your case I'll make an exception.
		-- Groucho Marx