Well, I"m starting to put more information up on my website. More blends, more programming, more tutorials. Since i get annoyed when i find information and can’t see a license, I’d like to have a clear license to show.
My main concerns for blends and artwork are:
Attribution – I want my name to be shown.- Notified if used (especially in commercial works)
My main concerns for tutorials are:
My main concerns for programming is:
Attribution- Edits to be shared back to community.- Libraries should be able to be used with other licenses
Out of all the licences I like the GPL. Not sure about Creative Commons – I haven’t really made up my mind about it yet. Seems good in ways but in other ways it could create headaches for a creator down the line.
You can always create you own licence, which will give you the most freedom as the creator of the work.
Simplyfied you could say CC : GPL = Artwork : Code
The GPL simply is tailored for software/code, not for artwork, where we could discuss if coding is art =)
That is why the CC was formed and its heavily based on the GPL.
And writing your own licence?
Good luck without being a lawyer. The internet as international domain, with local law in various countries you´ll have fun to try to formulate a save and sound license.
Notified if used is not covered by the Creative Commons-Licenses, so it boils down to:
Blends & Artwork & Tutorials: CC-BY
If you want to be notified you can simply ask for it, I’m sure a lot of people will do so.
Something smart: If you tell them to attribute to your website, you can check backlinks through Google analytics or any other web-stats tool. This way you can find out who’s using your stuff with no hassle
Libraries should be able to be used with other licenses
GPL explicitly excludes incorporating your code into other software that has less permissive licenses. It can be dynamically linked to if available as an external library, but this is still likely to reduce the usage of your code. (For the trolls, I know this is a gross over-simplification, but I cba to write an essay on this much-covered topic.)
Unfortunately the licensing choices don’t really cover both keeping code public and allowing it to be used with all other code and requiring attribution for the author.
It is easy to write your licence, basically it is a statement of terms that you want your end users to follow. Just be aware, depending on where you live, that country’s laws may override the terms of your licence.
GPL specifically forbids external linking by non-gpl compatible programs while the LGPL doesn’t (and was designed for this usage).
Basically on a graduated less-permissiveness scale (or a more free/libre RMS scale)…
BSD: If you just want people to not be able to claim they wrote it themselves
LGPL: If you want people to give their changes back but also be able to use it in non-free programs
GPL: If you only want it used in gpl-compatible programs
None of these allow someone to strip away your copyright so there will always be ‘attribution’, the real difference is if you want changes to the software given back and/or able to be used in proprietary programs.
Or there’s a hundred other open source licenses out there one of which covers all your requirements.
I was under the impression that you could charge for your programs if they were under the GPL, as long as you made your source code available to the end user, and that if you used GPL code, you would have to put it under the GPL, too.
INAL, but in my opinion one of the most important things that you must do is to register your copyright … which you can do for $30 (for an arbitrarily-large “collection”) in the US. See: http://www.copyright.gov.
(The notion of a “collection” is simply for paperwork purposes. Copyright applies jointly and severally to everything therein… but it reduces your cost, and their paper-pushing, to manageable levels by allowing you to do things in “big batches.”)
Once you have legally secured your title to the works, then you can license it under any term or terms that you wish … and you can also change your mind later. “The proclaimed legal owner can license his or her property, but none other.” If you do not take this seemingly-perfunctory step, your position is seriously weakened.
Of course, this is only a registration … a legal declaration … which could be challenged by someone who can make the case (or try to) that your declaration is full of sh*t. … and having done so, they might even prevail (i.e. if you really are …). But that’s always true of anything. The way that the law is written in most countries makes formal registration a very big (but inexpensive) deal.