The most useful tool that I found out there on the world wide web was the .org website for “Creative Commons”… creativecommmons.org. They spelled out exactly what creative commons is and their mission statement and then went on earlier to explain each of the six licenses in an elementary way. I appreciated this elementary type explanation because quite frankly, I had no idea what creative commons was at all.
So I learned that creative commons is a way to share knowledge and creativity and do it in a legal and technical way. Creative Commons was founded in 2001 and by 2003 a million licenses were working. The idea spread rapidly and by 2005 20 million licenses were working. They continued to grow and the most recent count in 2009 showed 350 million licenses working. I read all of this information, the whole time thinking.. what licenses?
Creative Commons offers six licenses with different restrictions on sharing work with others.
Attribution. (CC BY) This license allows others to distribute, remix, tweak, and build upon your original work as long as the original work is credited back to you. This seemed to be the least restrictive and the most reasonable for me as a ds106 student.
Attribution-ShareAlike (CC BY SA) This license is the same as the Attribution license except that the sharer must license the new tweaked work identically to the original license.
Attribution-NoDeriv (CC BY ND) This license allows redistribution, both commercially and non-commercially, however the work must be the original work without any tweaking, remixing, etc. And that work must still be credited to the originator.
Attribution-NonCommerical (CC BY NC) This license is the same at the Attribution license work cannot be shared commercially.
Attribution-NonCommerical-ShareAlike (CC BY NC SA) This license is just like the Attribution-NonCommercial license, except that the work must be licensed identically to the way the originator licenses their own work.
Attribution-NonCommerical-ShareAlike-NoDeriv (CC BY SA ND) This is the most restrictive of the licenses. The work cannot be changed, it can’t be shared commercially, and it must be licenses identically to the originator’s license. The work also has to credit to originator.
Again, I felt as though the .org was more informative than the other sites that I saw. I looked at the Wikipedia page as well. This .org site was most useful because it explained the concept, the licenses, gave examples and also explained how to license your own work using the license icons. It also explained that only copy righted work is able to be licensed through Creative Commons. This site is where I learned the most.
Again, the license that seems to make the most sense to me is the first “Attribution” license. This has the fewest restrictions and it makes the most sense because I wouldn’t really mind it people changed or remixed or tweaked my work. I can’t really imagine anyone even being interested in using something that I created, but it they did it would be nice to be recognized as the originator.