Changeset - 1c79e97b2cc4
[Not reviewed]
Mike Linksvayer (mlinksva) - 9 years ago 2015-04-03 00:14:12
ml@gondwanaland.com
add a couple self-citations expanding on assertions made
1 file changed with 5 insertions and 5 deletions:
0 comments (0 inline, 0 general)
cc-by-sa.tex
Show inline comments
...
 
@@ -72,7 +72,7 @@ to have learned the following:
 

	
 
% FIXME this list should be more aggressive, but material is not yet present
 

	
 
\textbf{WARNING: As of November 2014 this part is brand new, and badly needs review, expansion, error correction, and more.}
 
\textbf{WARNING: As of November 2014 this part is brand new, and badly needs review, referencing, expansion, error correction, and more.}
 

	
 

	
 
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
...
 
@@ -199,7 +199,7 @@ EFF Open Audio License (2001), LinuxTag Green OpenMusic License (2001;
 
non-free options) and the QING Public License (2002). Additionally
 
several copyleft licenses intended for hardware designs were proposed
 
starting in the late 1990s if not sooner (the GPL was then and is now
 
also commonly used for hardware designs, as is now CC-BY-SA).
 
also commonly used for hardware designs, as is now CC-BY-SA).\footnote{See \url{http://gondwanaland.com/mlog/2012/01/10/open-hardware-licenses-history/}.}
 

	
 
At the end of 2002 Creative Commons launched with 11 1.0 licenses
 
and a public domain dedication. The 11 licenses consisted of every
...
 
@@ -244,8 +244,6 @@ which began to be implemented in member state law starting from
 

	
 
\subsection{Aside on share-alike non-free therefore non-copylefts}
 

	
 
%FIXME section needs footnotes
 

	
 
Many licenses intended for use with non-software works include the
 
``share-alike'' aspect of copyleft: if adaptations are distributed,
 
to comply with the license they must be offered under the same terms.
...
 
@@ -258,7 +256,8 @@ mixed private property/commons regimes, as opposed to the commons
 
created by all free licenses, and protected by copyleft licenses. One
 
reason non-free public licenses might be common outside software, but
 
rare for software, is that software more obviously requires ongoing
 
maintenance. Without control concentrated through copyright assignment
 
maintenance.\footnote{For a slightly longer version of this argument, see \href{http://freebeer.fscons.org/freebeer-1.2.pdf#chapter.2}{Free Culture in Relation to Software
 
Freedom}.} Without control concentrated through copyright assignment
 
or highly asymmetric contributor license agreements, multi-contributor
 
maintenance quickly creates an ``anticommons'' -- e.g., nobody has
 
adequate rights to use commercially.
...
 
@@ -293,6 +292,7 @@ version 4.0 (2013).
 
The remainder of this tutorial
 
exclusively concerns the most widespread copyleft license intended
 
for non-software works, Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike
 

	
 
(CC-BY-SA). But, there are actually many CC-BY-SA licenses -- 5
 
versions (6 if you count version 2.1, a bugfix for a few jurisdiction
 
``porting'' mistakes), ports to 60 jurisdictions -- 96 distinct
0 comments (0 inline, 0 general)