Thursday, January 04, 2007 AD
Given my professed support for free software, copyleft, creative commons licensing etc, I thought it was about time I put my money where my mouth was and licensed the original content on this blog under a creative commons licence.
This isn't because I've previously regarded the content on this site as sacrosanct. My attitude has been, and remains, that you can basically do what you like with it (disclaimer: the preceding sentence is a general, non-binding statement of personal opinion and does not constitute a licence. Oh, I'm such a lawyer, aren't I?). But the creative commons endeavour is one that is worth supporting and publicising, and so I think it is good to make use of the official licences where possible.
Now, as I've already mentioned, I am a lawyer, and so naturally I've over-thought this and over-implemented it. My preference, in principle, is for a true "copyleft" licence like the GNU General Public Licence: one that not only allows other people to quote and modify the work, but that requires them to issue derived works under an equivalent licence. But, strictly speaking, that would require any other blogger who quoted stuff off this site to release the relevant post under a CC licence. As I'm trying to hug the coast of reality here, that didn't really seem very practicable.
On the other hand, while it is so fantastically unlikely as to be beyond contemplation that anyone would try to make commercial use of this material, if they do I'd want them to release it on a copyleft basis rather than as a proprietary work.
So (and do feel at liberty to groan, bang your head on your keyboard, weep bitter tears of frustration etc.) I've decided to go for a dual licence. If you are using it for non-commercial use, then I don't care what you do with it provided you attribute the source (see "attribution policy", below). So that's this licence here:
If you are using it for commercial use - and that includes advertising-supported blogs - then please release that work (which, in the case of a blog, could be just that single post if you prefer) under the same (or an equivalent) licence. So that's this licence here:
It's almost too simple, eh? Of course, the advice I'd probably give my clients is to ask how likely it is that I'd sue you if you don't follow these rules, and take a view. But don't expect me to put that in writing.
Oh, and finally: these licences only apply, naturally, to original material what I wrote. Any third-party material is not included within these licences - that material is normally clearly recognisable from the context of the post (e.g. it's an image, or blockquoted, or in quotation marks).
Attribution policy
Just commonsense, normal web practice: if you quote anything off this blog, a link back to the original post would be appreciated. If you quote it in printed format, just the blog address will do (currently http://confessingevangelical.blogspot.com), though the post address or a TinyURL (or equivalent) link is also fine. Basically as long as I get the possibility of some traffic from it, I don't care. ;-)
This isn't because I've previously regarded the content on this site as sacrosanct. My attitude has been, and remains, that you can basically do what you like with it (disclaimer: the preceding sentence is a general, non-binding statement of personal opinion and does not constitute a licence. Oh, I'm such a lawyer, aren't I?). But the creative commons endeavour is one that is worth supporting and publicising, and so I think it is good to make use of the official licences where possible.
Now, as I've already mentioned, I am a lawyer, and so naturally I've over-thought this and over-implemented it. My preference, in principle, is for a true "copyleft" licence like the GNU General Public Licence: one that not only allows other people to quote and modify the work, but that requires them to issue derived works under an equivalent licence. But, strictly speaking, that would require any other blogger who quoted stuff off this site to release the relevant post under a CC licence. As I'm trying to hug the coast of reality here, that didn't really seem very practicable.
On the other hand, while it is so fantastically unlikely as to be beyond contemplation that anyone would try to make commercial use of this material, if they do I'd want them to release it on a copyleft basis rather than as a proprietary work.
So (and do feel at liberty to groan, bang your head on your keyboard, weep bitter tears of frustration etc.) I've decided to go for a dual licence. If you are using it for non-commercial use, then I don't care what you do with it provided you attribute the source (see "attribution policy", below). So that's this licence here:
If you are using it for commercial use - and that includes advertising-supported blogs - then please release that work (which, in the case of a blog, could be just that single post if you prefer) under the same (or an equivalent) licence. So that's this licence here:
It's almost too simple, eh? Of course, the advice I'd probably give my clients is to ask how likely it is that I'd sue you if you don't follow these rules, and take a view. But don't expect me to put that in writing.
Oh, and finally: these licences only apply, naturally, to original material what I wrote. Any third-party material is not included within these licences - that material is normally clearly recognisable from the context of the post (e.g. it's an image, or blockquoted, or in quotation marks).
Attribution policy
Just commonsense, normal web practice: if you quote anything off this blog, a link back to the original post would be appreciated. If you quote it in printed format, just the blog address will do (currently http://confessingevangelical.blogspot.com), though the post address or a TinyURL (or equivalent) link is also fine. Basically as long as I get the possibility of some traffic from it, I don't care. ;-)
Labels: copyleft, creative commons, free culture, lawyered to death, licensing
