Samuel Penn wrote: > I think (IANAL) that if you choose to allow the above three, > plus enforce 'share alike' (people must use the same license), > it becomes very GPL-like. Whether this makes it GPL compatible > or not I'm not sure. I think the Share-Alike CCPL is the license closest to the GPL. However, I'm really more interested in whether the CCPL is "free" as we define it. > One thing I do like - it's got some meta data tags for sticking > into web pages, plus human readable and lawyer readable versions > of each version of the license (it also has this for the GPL, > Public Domain and other licenses). It also has a nifty form > for selecting the options you want: Yes, the licensing meta-tags are highly useful and I can see many potential uses for them, particularly for us (sticking these tags into OO.org files for example). Its a shame they have not been more widely adopted. > One thing I do like (and what got me thinking about using it in > the first place) is that there's a UK version designed with > wording for UK law. Not sure what the differences are between > US and UK laws in this regard though. AFAIK, there is no specific version of teh CCPL for the UK, but there are for other countries, such as Germany, where copyright lay is slightly different. Actually, I believe others have criticised the CCPL because it has seperate versions of its license for different countries with different terms for each. The argument going is that it increases the complexity of re-using the license and makes it unclear whether the various national licenses are compatible. BTW, my letter has been posted on the general CC licenses mailing list here: http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/cc-licenses/2004-November/001311.html The following thread (previously posted) is a discussion on just this topic on debian-legal: http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2004/03/threads.html#00267 Kind regards... -- Ricardo Gladwell President, Free Roleplaying Community http://www.freeroleplay.org/ president@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx