[Harmony-Drafting] Licensing for website content and agreements

[Allison Randal]

On 06/08/2011 06:40 AM, Dennis E. Hamilton wrote:
> 
> 2. I don't think GPL and CC-by are in any way equivalent.  GPL is
> more like CC-share-alike without attribution (and without any
> confusion/presumed-endorsement prohibition too).  Also, GPL has
> provisions  that are not very meaningful for documents and
> specifications, including template agreement documents.   I find it
> odd that the CC-by is considered to have more terms than the GPL.
> Which GPL license is that?  I think it is wise to start from the
> position that there is no thing as "just another open source
> license."

The similarity mentioned wasn't between the GPL itself and CC-BY, but
between the simple statement at the top of GPL:

"Everyone is permitted to copy and distribute verbatim copies of this
license document, but changing it is not allowed."

And a CC "no derivatives" license.

So, the simple Harmony statement proposed is like a "derivatives
allowed" variation on the statement at the top of the GPL.


It really does get confusing when we start talking about licenses for
licenses.

Allison