Creative Commons released an Add-in for OpenOffice.org which allows users to select and embed a Creative Commons license in documents. Based on work completed as part of the Google Summer of Code by Cassio Melo, the add-in supports Writer (word processing documents), Calc (spreadsheets) and Impress (presentations).
The Add-in is available without charge, and is licensed under the GNU General Public License. Download information and links to source code.
The Free Software Foundation have created a Quick Guide to GPLv3 and this is something of a “must read”… no seriously it is…
Consumer Law and Policy Blog has a great article on the moronic “browse-wrap” agreements, a derivation of the “shrinkwrap” licensing terms that appear inside packaged software. The Browse-wrap agreements is the terms and conditions which the company believes that they are able to enforce on anyone who happens to browse over to their website.
In fact the company Inventor-link has the following terms in there browse-wrap (“Privacy and User Agreement):
Furthermore, we strictly prohibit any links and or other unauthorized references to our web site without our permission.
So even without visiting their website they claim that people cannot link to their site without their prior consent.
Consumer Law and Policy Blog writes:
Depending on the circumstances of the case, browse-wrap agreements may or may not be enforceable. Where a company has included a provision prohibiting fair use for purposes of criticism, however, it is hard to see how any court would enforce the agreement. Readers of a site have little opportunity to review and agree to such terms, and a reasonable consumer who had reviewed the terms would be unlikely to agree to them.
Attempting to control linking is not a new phenomena. Back in 2001 KPMG attempted to intimidate the owner of a website and prevent him from linking to the KPMG theme song (oh, yes!) by claiming that he had not been approved through a “Web Link Agreement”, read the story (and the cheesy song lyrics) on Wired.
The article over at Consumer Law and Policy Blog contains an interesting analysis of the situation and I recommend that everyone should read the article and take a stand to make sure that idiotic licenses (?) such as these become as worthless as the code they are written in.
Creative Commons is going to celebrate its fifth birthday in December and it’s adoption and spread is nothing short of amazing.
The green/grey countries have adopted CC, the yellow or on the verge of adopting and the red have not begun to work on the licenses. Seen as a bottom-up movement the spread of Creative Commons shows its amazing success.
In the five years since our launch, we have grown up fast. In 2004, we incubated an international movement supporting the ideals of the Internet and cultural freedom (iCommons). This year we spun that organization out as an independent UK-based charity. In 2005, we launched a project to support a commons within science (Science Commons). This year Science Commons launched the Neurocommons, an e-research project built exclusively on open scientific literature and databases, and the Materials Transfer Project, an extension of the ideas of the commons to physical tools such as gene plasmids and cell lines. And just two months ago, we announced a significant grant that has enabled us to launch a project focused on learning and education (ccLearn). There is now a staff of over 30 in four offices around the world, supporting thousands of volunteers in more than 70 local jurisdiction projects around the world, who, in turn, support the millions of objects that have been marked with the freedoms that CC licenses enable.
Sorry for the geeky title but when I came across this over on Boing Boing it struck me that licensing is going way, way beyond contract theory in an attempt to control the rights over the users. From Boing Boing:
The Software may contain third party software which requires notices and/or additional terms and conditions. Such required third party software notices and/or additional terms and conditions are made a part of and incorporated by reference into this EULA. By accepting this EULA, you are also accepting the additional terms and conditions, if any, set forth therein.
Most EULAs (end user license agreements) tend to make sure that the user has little or no rights at all. EULA’s can also conveniently be changed without notifying the user of the changes. This means that the software user should consider herself lucky if her equipment works at all.
The example above goes beyond that. By agreeing to the EULA you also agree to any terms or conditions of third party software the original company may choose to install. This makes it impossible for the user to even attempt to control her rights against the software manufacturers.
For more on EULA’s see, for example, this article I wrote on Spyware.
Luxembourg is the 40th Jurisdiction to adopt the Creative Commons licensing suite worldwide.
An event to commemorate the launch will be held on October 15th at the Public Research Center Henri Tudor (CRP) in Luxembourg, featuring speeches by John Buckman, founder and CEO of Magnatune.com and Board Member of Creative Commons; Paul Keller, Project Lead for Creative Commons Netherlands; Laurent Kratz, founder Luxembourg’s Jamendo, one of the largest music portals offering Creative Commons-licensed works; and Lionel Maurel, scientific coordinator from the National Library of France. (via the Creative Commons blog)
Congratulations Luxembourg!
The Dutch collecting societies support CC – this is a great leap forward, I cannot help but wonder what the Swedish societies will do now? Probably try to continue to ignore technology, innovation, the commons, and reality…
From Paul Keller – CC Netherlands Project Lead:
On August 23, 2007, Dutch collecting societies Buma and Stemra and Creative Commons Netherlands launched a pilot project that seeks to provide Dutch musicians with more opportunities to promote their own repertoire. This project enables members of Buma/Stemra to use the 3 non-commercial CC licenses for non-commercial distribution of their works. It also allows Dutch composers and lyricists who already use the CC NonCommercial license to join Buma/Stemra and have them collect their royalties for commercial use of their works.
Before now Dutch authors have not been able to make their work available online under the CC NC license while at the same time having Buma/Stemra collect their royalties for commercial use of those works. The Netherlands is the first country to bring such a collaboration between a music copyright organization and Creative Commons, a move applauded by Lawrence Lessig, the founder and chairman of Creative Commons International, as “the first step towards more freedom of choice in the field of exploiting music works in the digital world.”
The press release by Creative Commons Netherlands and Buma Stemra can be found here. And for more information about what’s going on in the Netherlands check out CC Netherlands website.
When Virginia Wolf wrote the long essay A Room of One’s Own in 1928 (published 1929) it was a call for the need for authors to have a physical and mental space within which they would have the possibility and acceptance to create. It was also a criticism against the male dominated society and the way in which women were denied such a room. Naturally there is an online version under CC license – it is well worth reading.
Since I will be beginning a new job at the University of Lund in September I really need to find such a room (in Lund).
So if anyone knows where I can rent a room or an apartment in Lund – please let me know.
Over the last several years I have been based at the University of Göteborg working as a lecturer and carrying out my research. Last year my research resulted in the defense of my thesis. During my time at Göteborg I have managed to be a researcher in Italy, a visiting fellow in England, I joined the Free Software Foundation and became project lead for Creative Commons Sweden.
In recent years I have come to focus greatly on copyright and open access questions so it was with great interest that I applied for a role in an open access project based at the University of Lund. Yesterday I was offered (and accepted the position).
The main thrust of my work will be:
This all means that after the summer most of my work will be based at the University of Lund. Lund is one of the oldest universities in Sweden (established 1666) and it is one of the driving forces in the open access arena. But, fortunately for me I will also be able to keep a small position at the University of Göteborg.
Photo Al Monner (1935) Historic photoarchive
Today is the official release of the GPLv3 license by the Free Software Foundation. This is a major event within the software community yet at the same time there are many who do not understand the purpose, point and meaning of the GPL so it’s time for a refresher course.
From the GPLv3 Press collection you can read about the purpose and meaning of free software, the relationship between GNU and Linux and the important difference between free software and “open source”.
On 1 April 2007 Richard Stallman gave a speech on the GPLv3 in Brussels you can listen to it here in Ogg/Vorbis. In the summer of 2006 Eben Moglen gave a talk in Barcelona discussing the wording of the changes in version 3 (listen in Ogg/Vorbis).
Personal Notes has collected great links about the GPLv3
So to begin withâ?¦Why would someone need or want to upgrade from the GPLv2 to the GPLv3? Let the person who started it all to explain why
Here there’s a really nice and clear A&Q ‘session’ on GPLv3 wrote by Luis Villa and divided in 3 blog entries (probably more to come):
- GPL v3, the Q&A: part 1- the license
- GPL v3, the Q&A: part 2- developers
- GPL v3, the Q&A: part 3- companies
Groklaw, as usual, is an incredible source of interesting material:
