The JavaScript etc. would constitute software, in the same way that a browser extension which might provide the same functionality would be.

However, the Creative Commons FAQ item that you linked to says that it doesn’t recommend their licenses because they “do not make mention of source or object code”, but in the distribution of JavaScript and the like, there is no distinction between source and object code. The JavaScript, CSS, XHTML, everything else, whether or not software, will always be text files, which a Creative Commons license should have no problem taking care of.

It might be different if you were encrypting of obfuscating the code in some way and wanted to protect against the grande scourge that is reverse engineering, but, you know… you don’t.

Forgive me if this is a ‘duh’ question, I was just kind of curious.

Based on my recommendation, my employer (a California State agency which will remain nameless, thank you very much) is contemplating S5 as a replacement for posting PowerPoint presentations on the web. Suppose we go through all the requisitions (yes, even with freeware), approvals, signatures, etc. ad nauseam — when Mr. Meyer decides to change the licensing structure. That means we (my employer and I — the person who made the original suggestion) would have to go through the entire process.

Just keep it simple and explicit:

• Content is Copyright ©2004 Eric Meyer. All rights reserved.
• The S5 Framework (XHTML document structure, CSS, and Javascript) is also Copyright ©2004 Eric Meyer … with a link to whatever license you choose.

Just let me know when you decide on the final license—then I can start my paperwork.

Plus you can take a look at the other ones.

“THE BEER-WARE LICENSE” (Revision 42):

wrote this file. As long as you retain this notice you can do whatever you want with this stuff. If we meet some day, and you think this stuff is worth it, you can buy me a beer in return. Poul-Henning Kamp

Short and sweet, I think.

I agree with comment 23 that a bit of clarification would be helpful. I assume that s5-blank.html itself is essentially being placed in the public domain, so the contents of one’s presentation does not have to be licensed under the Creative Commons license.

I’m not sure what the implications are for copyrighting the CSS files, though; the question if a web design implemented in CSS can be copyrighted was recently discussed by Paul Scrivens. It would seem that by copyrighting and licensing the CSS files with a Creative Commons license, any slide presentation designs based on S⁵ would have to be covered by the same license.

By the way, since <sup> isn’t listed as a supported attribute in your comments, it’s unsurprising that people are not superscripting the 5.

I can see that you could wish to keep parts licensed differently, but still I fail to see much of a difference between it and a “normal” GUI app.

Never doubt that S5 is software. You furrow your brow over whether it is a program, and try to distinguish between the scripts and the markup; these distinctions are irrelevant. It is a creative work, functionally useful, represented as information. (I call that “software”; whether you agree with that name or not, that definition describes S5.) As such, it makes sense to put a free software license on it.

We need your unambiguous license terms for copying, modification, redistribution, aggregation et cetera. The question of whether S5 is a program or not has no bearing on that issue.

If you want to usefully release S5 to the community, please follow the Creative Commons folk’s advice and *don’t* use their contract-like agreements; choosing a well-understood universal grant of license like the GPL makes the situation clear.

And actually, the presentation itself would fall under the GPL. That’s definitely not what you intend (I presume). At most, I would put the Javascript code under the LGPL, and make it explicit that this only covers other Javascript code, not any HTML or CSS. Or just put it under a BSD-style license for simplicity.

As Voracity says, the GPL and similiar is about coercion, not about altruism.

The Stallman quote comes to mind: “Your freedom to throw your fist ends at the tip of your nose”. I don’t think the term coercion applies to the idea of the GPL. After all, you can always not use it.

Unless you see all laws as coercions, too. But I’d still think you’re wrong.

Back to the topic, now?

If you think of HTML or JavaScript as borderline cases, think of shell scripts or plain-text that’s so-called intellectual property.

As Voracity says, the GPL and similiar is about coercion, not about altruism.

The world that worries about this stuff, that Eric says he doesn’t really want to live in, is created *entirely* by people fussing over this stuff when they don’t need to.

My favourite licence at the top of a bit of give-away software says pretty much exactly what I originally suggested. I’ve yet to see the problem with this. It certainly isn’t as stated in comment 25, where the perpetrator would either have to add a lot of value of their own, or they’d have to compete against a similar product which was being given away. Fair play to them for the first, tough luck in the second.

. . . someone could come along and remove those freedoms I gave to my users.

Unless I misunderstand, they can’t. They can only specify restrictions on derivative works. Your original work will always have the same freedoms (barring retrospective legislation).

I view the GPL (and similar licenses) as a good means of coercing the development of free software, not of protecting existing free software.