I note that there's no current list of licenses made primarily for
non-software works that follow the principles and spirit of Open
Source software -- so-called "Open Content". (I'm not crazy about the
word "content", but it's used often.)

I believe there are a number of Open Content licenses that would
satisfy the Open Source Definition. Of particular interest to me are
the Creative Commons licenses -- a suite of 11+ licenses with
mix-and-match license elements for various uses.

I think that the following Creative Commons licenses could satisfy the
Open Source Definition:

     Attribution (BSD-like)
     Attribution-ShareAlike (GPL-like)
     ShareAlike (GPL-like)

I understand that the list of Open Source licenses is mostly for
software, but the Academic Free License seems to be primarily aimed
at non-software works.

So, I'm wondering if submissions for approval of licenses primarily
for non-software works would be dismissed out of hand, or would be
considered. And, if they'd be considered, would they be considered
only for their applicability to software, or for other works as well?



Evan Prodromou <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Wikitravel - http://www.wikitravel.org/
The free, complete, up-to-date and reliable world-wide travel guide
license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3

Reply via email to