Thoughts on copyrights, but ....
Appreciate your thoughts on copyright, as I am trying to figure out what type of copyright should be applied to my materials. As no publisher would consider publishing my works (something about having their math textbook series "compared" to another!); over the years I have had to at my expense put it on various media (mimeographed in the 70's and 80's; floppy disks in the 80's and now on the World Wide Web). Interesting all funding sources consider the thought that an individual could create anything as nonsense - it takes a committee.
Sorry about this "rant", but it is easy for young people who have a lifetime ahead of them to ignore the amount of effort that goes into creating tools.
Good question Jim,
I would recommend using a license which meets the free cultural works definition. There are two mainstream licenses which meet this requirement:
- CC-BY -- The license which grants the most permissions on condition that the original author is attribute. Under this license it is possible for derivative works to be published under an all rights reserved license in the case of a commercial publication.
- CC-BY-SA -- The sharealike license requires that all derivative works must be released under the same license (hence sharealike). This is often called the viral clause because all derivative works must contain the SA provision. If you're concerned with commercial exploitation of your work -- This is a good way to protect your work.
There is also a No rights reserved tool:
- CC0 is a mechanism to achieve the effect of a public domain declaration especially in countries where the public domain is not recognised. With CCO waive all copyrights and related or neighboring rights that you have over your work, including for example the requirement for attribution. It is therefore a no rights reserved tool.