olpc project releases 10G of sound samples

[Jon]

http://wiki.laptop.org/go/Sound_samples

CC BY-3.0

Not sure how compatible BY is with the freedoom license - I *think* it is compatible in so far as you could remove freedoms from the freedoom license (because it's BSD-style "do what you like") but then freedoom as an aggregate would be less free since bits would need attribution.

Anyway, there might be some interesting/useful stuff in there which would make it worthwhile.

[andrewj]

From the GNU website:

Creative Commons Attribution 2.0 license (a.k.a. CC-BY)

This is a non-copyleft free license that is good for art and entertainment works, and educational works. Please don't use it for software or documentation, since it is incompatible with the GNU GPL and with the GNU FDL.

So unfortunately I don't think it is compatible with FreeDoom's license, .

[Stilgar]

(Standard disclaimer: I am not a lawyer (nor do I aspire to be one) so take my assessment with a grain of salt.)

As far as I can tell, there isn't any Creative Commons license that would be compatible with three-clause BSD style licensing like Freedoom uses. As I understand it, CC basically allows a mix and match of the following terms:
Attribution
Share Alike
Non-commercial
No Derivatives

Selecting Non-commercial or No Derivatives, by nature, would put anything licensed under those terms outside the scope of FSF or OSI definitions, and would be more like releasing something as "freeware" as in "free beer".

Attribution (as is the term selected here), is not outside the scope of FSF or OSI definitions AFAIK, but it also isn't a requirement of either BSD or GNU licenses, hence the incompatibility the FSF mentions since the GPL doesn't allow adding additional restrictions. You could integrate something under a BSD style license with that, but then it would be kind of similar to how you can take something under a BSD license and make something closed-source out of it, the assembled work wouldn't really be BSD any more, and wouldn't be GPL compatible (and GPL compatibility is a desirable thing IMHO.)

Share Alike, if it were the only term selected, might be GPL compatible unless there's something fiddly in the legalese, but as far as I know just about any CC licensed thing that's SA is BY also. Plus, as with the above, adding it into a BSD-style project would make it not wholly BSD-style anymore - if you were going to start imposing share-alike restrictions it might as well be GPL instead.

There's also Sampling and Sampling Plus but as I recall both those imply Non-commercial.

So, by my understanding there is no Creative Commons license that is as unrestricted as a three-clause BSD license is. Having things of multiple licensing gobbed into a single IWAD would also IMHO be a bad idea, I'm not sure what the legal definitions would say but as I see it an assembled IWAD ought to be looked at as a single compiled unit (comparable to a compiled binary) with the individual lumps as its "source code".

[Jon]

Ajapted said:

From the GNU website:

So unfortunately I don't think it is compatible with FreeDoom's license, .

First of all, that analysis is for CC 2.0, rather than 3.0 -- but eitherway, freedoom's license isn't GNU.

Stilgar said:

So, by my understanding there is no Creative Commons license that is as unrestricted as a three-clause BSD license is. Having things of multiple licensing gobbed into a single IWAD would also IMHO be a bad idea, I'm not sure what the legal definitions would say but as I see it an assembled IWAD ought to be looked at as a single compiled unit (comparable to a compiled binary) with the individual lumps as its "source code".

I think a wad is an aggregation more like a tarball than a compiled binary. But yes, this license is more restrictive than 3-clause BSD, so if it were used, you would either need to have the entirety of freedoom under the more restrictive license or have a mish-mash of licenses which I think everyone would like to avoid.

[chungy]

The Freedoom license already has its own form of attribution (redistribution requires having the copyright notice, which pretty much says who made it). Although I'm not a lawyer, I think the CC BY-3.0 license is compatible with Freedoom's.

[leileilol]

hmm there's some non-Free stuff in there like the godzilla roar as 'eviltoy1.wav' and 'eviltoy2.wav' in Berklee44v13.zip

[fraggle]

Yeah, this looks sufficiently dodgy that it's probably best to stay clear.

[CODOR]

MikeRS said:
The Freedoom license already has its own form of attribution (redistribution requires having the copyright notice, which pretty much says who made it). Although I'm not a lawyer, I think the CC BY-3.0 license is compatible with Freedoom's.

This was my line of thinking as well, but I haven't read the legal text of the BY-3.0 license recently (which isn't so great on my part since I've been using either it or the BY-NC-3.0 license for some things I've done). However, Freedoom's license is a BSD license which was originally intended for software, while the CC licenses are more suited for things other than software. CC includes a table showing compatibility between their licenses, but it doesn't include the (L)GPL and BSD ones (probably for the same reason).