Trails

I just listed all the free culture licenses I know (i.e. those licenses that are for creative works other than software). Here’s the list. Please use the comment facility to add to it.

1. Academic Free License 3.0
2. Against DRM 2.0
3. Creative Archive License
4. Creative Commons by
5. Creative Commons by-nc
6. Creative Commons by-nc-nd
7. Creative Commons by-nc-sa
8. Creative Commons by-nd
9. Creative Commons by-sa
10. Debian Video License
11. Design Science License
12. Free Art License 1.3
13. FreeBSD Documentation License
14. GFDL 1.2
15. GFDL 1.3
16. Lizenz für Freie Inhalte
17. Open Content License
18. ODC Open Database License
19. ODC Public Domain Dedication and License
20. Open Directory License
21. Open Gaming License
22. Open Publication License
23. SIL Open Font License

The good people of the Free Cultural Works projects has created a table where they characterise some of free culture licenses (as well as some licenses primarily meant for free software).

I must admit that I find their table somewhat confusing. In particular, the columns called “Practical modifiability” and “Related rights” seems to be partly wrong. Also, the column headed “Access control prohibition” fails to note that there are significant differences between the anti-DRM-clauses in the GFDL license and the CC licenses. But until I get around to creating my own table, the Free Cultural Works table is the only one that exists.

There are also some efforts to create free licenses for other man-made efforts, such as hardware. Below are those I am aware of. Please use the comment facility to add to it.

1. Balloon license
2. IANG License
3. Hardware Design Public License
4. TAPR Open Hardware License

Below is my preliminary list of dimensions for making comparisons for licenses for free cultural works:

• Copyleft: yes / no.
• Permit derivative works: yes / no.
• Permit incorporation in non-free collections: yes / no.
• Permit commercial use: yes / no.
• Moral rights clauses: explicit(1) / implicit.
• Logo, or similar, mandatory (aka. advertising clause): yes / no
• DRM-clause: yes(2) / no
• Territory: global / limited
• Technology neutral: yes / no(3)
• License translations: yes(4) / no

Notes:

1. Large differences in scope and direction for licenses that regulates moral rights explicitly through the license text.
2. Large differences in the DRM-clause. Need to be discussed later.
3. Notes should note how the licene fails to address certain types of technology.
4. Some of the licenses provide exact translations of the license text to other languages. Other not only translate, but also adept to local law.

You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.