Re: OSL vs Creative Commons

[Jens Granseuer <jensgr@gmx.net>]

On 13.03.2004 07:20, Dave Fancella wrote:
> 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.  ;)

Considering all this is there a reason we can't just pick GPL for everything
and leave it at that? There are lots of projects out there (including Crimson
Fields, up to now) which also put the content under GPL and I can't see any
obvious reason why they shouldn't. Is there?

Jens