2011-06-21 // Which Free Documentation License is Right for You?
When writing documentation for GNU/Linux or any other FOSS project it makes sense to license it under some sort of Free license. Doing so will allow others to redistribute and build on it. But with the plethora of Free Documentation licenses available it can be confusing to choose the right one for you. This article will explain the differences among some of the most common licenses so that you can make the best choice.
The licenses discussed here can, and often are, used for a variety of different forms of expression, but for the purpose of this article we will only focus on how they apply to the written word.
Even though Creative Commons rules the roost when it comes to Free Documentation licenses, we'll start with one that's even more well known but often not recognized as a license per se. We start from the least restrictive licenses and move forward to the ones with the most requirements.
Public Domain
Works that are in the Public Domain are free for the public to use in any manner they see fit. Works may be modified in any way and redistributed even for commercial purposes. No attribution or even acknowledgement of the original source is required. A work will generally move into the Public Domain after an arbitrary (and increasingly longer and longer) amount of time has passed.
Creative Commons 0 1.0 Universal
This license confers the same rights as Public Domain in that your work can be redistributed and modified for any reason. The reason it exists separate from Public Domain is so that authors can explicitly enter their work into the Public Domain immediately rather than waiting for copyrights or other licenses to expire.
Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported
CC BY A work with this license may be redistributed and modified at will and may be used for commercial purposes. Attribution to the original author is required, though one should be careful to note that this does not imply endorsement. This license does not place any license restrictions on “downstream” derivatives (see below).
Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Unported
CC BY-SA This license confers the same rights of redistribution and modification as well as the responsibility for attribution as the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported license above. Where they differ is that any derivative works made from the original must also carry the same or similar license as the original.
GNU Free Documentation License
This is the license brought to you from the folks at GNU. It allows redistribution and modification, with the clause that some sections can be marked “invariant” (non-modifiable). It is worth noting that invariant sections are one of the primary reasons Debian has concluded that GNU Free Documentation License is not suitable for Debian main Commercial use is allowed.
Creative Commons Attribution-No Derivatives
CC BY-ND This license allows for redistribution including that for commercial purposes, but no modification is allowed. Attribution (without implied endorsement) is required.
Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommerical 3.0 Unported
CC BY-NC This license is the same as the Creative Commons Attribution with the exception that redistribution of the original or modifications to it may not be used for commercial purposes. Attribution is required.
Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-Share Alike 3.0 Unported
CC BY-NC-SA Again, the same as Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike with free redistribution and modification, but with the caveat of no commercial use. Attribution is necessary.
Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 3.0 Unported
CC BY-NC-ND Finally we come to the most restrictive license. These works may be redistributed, but no modifications are allowed. Attribution must be given and the work can not be used for commercial purposes.
Conclusion
Now that you know the difference among many of the licenses available you're ready to hit the keyboard and spread the FOSS word!
cheers
mark
Comments
Yea, it can be confusing. Even in this short list of the major ones and the ones that just apply to writing it can be terrible confusing. I know this post probably hasn't helped much with your needs for licensing artwork but I hope it's helped some others a little bit.
Leave a comment…
- E-Mail address will not be published.
- Formatting:
//italic// __underlined__
**bold**''preformatted'' - Links:
[[http://example.com]]
[[http://example.com|Link Text]] - Quotation:
> This is a quote. Don't forget the space in front of the text: "> "
- Code:
<code>This is unspecific source code</code>
<code php><?php echo 'PHP'; ?></code>
<code html><strong>(X)HTML</strong></code>
<code css>font-family: Arial,Helvetica;</code>
<code javascript>alert('JS');</code>
<code c>printf('C');</code>
<code cpp>std::cout << 'CPP';</code>
<code java>System.out.println('Java');</code>
The first time I submitted artwork to E17 stuff I was presented with about 20 different licenses and I had to choose one. There was no information on any of them. not even there full names. I just picked one at random :P