콘텐츠 프로젝트 열기

Open Content Project
크리에이티브 커먼즈
Open content norm.svg
후계자크리에이티브 커먼즈
설립자데이비드 A.와일리
용해.2003(2003)
웹 사이트opencontent.org

오픈 콘텐츠 프로젝트는 자유로운 문화와 크리에이티브 커먼스를 위한 프로젝트였습니다.

한 가지 목표는 오픈 콘텐츠의 개념을 전파하는 것이었습니다.이 프로젝트의 오픈 퍼블리싱 라이선스는 주로 학계용으로 설계되어 제공되며 아티스트 또는 기타 콘텐츠 공급자의 요구에 쉽게 적응할 수 있습니다.

오픈 콘텐츠 프로젝트는 2003년에 종료되어 크리에이티브 [1][2]커먼스가 계승하고 있습니다.

레퍼런스

  1. ^ https://web.archive.org/web/20030802222546/http://opencontent.org/ (2003년 6월 30일 아카이브)
  2. ^ Wiley, David (2007-05-06). "About the Open Publication License". iterating toward openness. [The] Open Content License (July 14, 1998), which was replaced by the Open Publication License (June 8, 1999), were the first licenses to bring the ideals of open source software to the world of content. The OCL predates the GFDL (Nov 2002) and Creative Commons (Dec 2002) by over four years, while the improved OPL predates both by over three years. The OCL was developed primarily by me... The improved OPL was written primarily by Eric Raymond after discussions with me, Tim O’Reilly, and others... The OPL was truly innovative in that, in addition to requiring citation of the original author as source, it contained two license options which authors could choose to invoke: one restricts users’ abilities to creative derivative works, while the second restricts users’ abilities to make certain commercial uses of the material. The student of open content licensing will recognize that these are exactly the options that Creative Commons now employs. What may be forgotten is that in version 1.0 of the Creative Commons licenses, Attribution was actually included in the licenses only as an option. In version 2.0 of the CC licenses (May 24, 2004) attribution was standard on every license, and there were two licenses options: one regarding derivative works, and one regarding commercial use. So in terms of high level structure, the OPL was here about five years before CC. ... Actually, the [OCL and OPL] licenses weren’t that great, seeing as I am not a lawyer, and neither was anyone else involved in the creation of the license. The concept was right, and the execution was “good enough,” but Creative Commons (with its excellent lawyers and law school students) created a better legal instrument. As I said on the opencontent.org homepage on Monday June 30, 2003: 'My main goal in beginning OpenContent back in the Spring of 1998 was to evangelize a way of thinking about sharing materials, especially those that are useful for supporting education. ... I’m closing OpenContent because I think Creative Commons is doing a better job of providing licensing options which will stand up in court [and I'm joining] Creative Commons as Director of Educational Licenses. Now I can focus in on facilitating the kind of sharing most interesting to me ... with the pro bono support of really good IP lawyers... The OpenContent License and Open Publication License will remain online for archival purposes in their current locations. However, no future development will occur on the licenses themselves.'

외부 링크


Stub icon

이 인터넷 관련 기사는 촌극이다.위키피디아를 확장함으로써 위키피디아를 도울 수 있습니다.