Creative Commons Add-In for Office Released 134
Ctrl+Alt+De1337 writes "Creative Commons has announced the release of an add-in to Microsoft Office that allows the easy addition of a CC license to files created with Word, PowerPoint, or Excel. It was co-developed by Microsoft and Creative Commons and only works in Office XP and Office 2003. It can be downloaded from Microsoft's download center after a validation check, and CNet has a screenshot available of the tool."
it is a crock off shit (Score:1, Insightful)
I can't see how anyone could construe this as an endorsement by Microsoft of unconventional copyright terms.
Can anyone explain how this is NOT a thinly-veiled a ruse to encourage use of Microsoft's proprietary file formats for potentially important, widely distributed documents?
Re:it is a crock off shit (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:it is a crock off shit (Score:2)
Re:it is a crock off shit (Score:2, Insightful)
But I agree, the irony of using proprietary formats for such documents, cannot have escaped the Microsoft Humor Department.
Typical M$. (Score:2)
Any kind of big media company ... want to actively encourage other people to release their creative works under very free licenses. Preferably, BSD-style
The old, "What's ours is ours and what yours is ours, thanks for giving" license.
Microsoft and others love that and this tool reflects that love. The choices are restricted and the defaults are just what M$ would like:
Re:it is a crock off shit (Score:3, Insightful)
On the other hand, one point with (some of) the CC licenses is continued editing; although another point is to maintain the distinction against public domain with "full edit/no attribution" rights. That is, a PDF version might not technically hinder you from integrating a CC work into your own document, but if you use MS Office (or even OO.org), a MS Office document might mean an easier way to do it. This means that we
Re:it is a crock off shit (Score:2, Interesting)
I like how you started out with an assumption then expect other people to verify that assumption for you. Oh shit I mean.... rawr M$ is teh evil rofl mao
Re:it is a crock off shit (Score:1)
Quoi? I clearly challenged anyone to show the contrary...
Perhaps the first statement is not related to the second in the way you think. One refutes their ostensible intent, and the other is my assertion of their actual intent.
Ah the hell with it, I'm all geeked out for today - you win.
Re:it is a crock off shit (Score:2)
Re:it is a crock off shit (Score:4, Funny)
No, just the angry, belligerent, and or annoying ones.
Re:it is a crock off shit (Score:2)
Re:it is a crock off shit (Score:2)
And I never said I was one of them, so no defensiveness intended!
Re:it is a crock off shit (Score:2)
Re:it is a crock off shit (Score:2)
Christ, lose the tinfoil hat. I'll explain it: they've made a tool to do a Good Thing with their software. They haven't tried to embrace/extend CC. They are *allowed* to add features to their software.
I've also evidently missed when CC documents became important and widely distributed to lend any credence to your conspiracy theory.
I
Re:it is a crock off shit (Score:3, Interesting)
Hrm... Well, then how about these:
"Microsoft today announced the release of its Simple List Extensions specification to RSS under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike license." (source [creativecommons.org])
"The Microsoft-hosted PatternShare community brings together information on software patterns organized by wiki inventor and now Microsoft employee Ward Cunningham." (source [creativecommons.org])
From Lawrence Lessig's blog: "S
Re:it is a crock off shit (Score:2, Interesting)
We'll See (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:We'll See (Score:3, Funny)
I am sure that Microsoft would want to know about this hidden feature you are using!
Re:We'll See (Score:2)
Re:We'll See (Score:2)
Re:We'll See (Score:2)
Why do you need an add-in? (Score:5, Insightful)
Why would you want a "Creative Commons tool" for Office? Wouldn't it just be easier to add a page after the title page, like the copyright page, but instead explaining the license of the document? Why do you need a program to do it for you?
What would be far more useful would be a way to tag Creative Commons documents in web pages, and then if some search engine (Google? please?) would explicitly label Creative Commons results as such, and encourage people to listen to, view, combine, mash up (shudder), and otherwise use them.
Re:Why do you need an add-in? (Score:5, Insightful)
What this looks like is pretty much a wizard that asks you how you would like to allow your work to be used, and then generates the CC license for those conditions. Although a nice add on, it really doesn't look all that complicated. I'm hoping it isn't long until someone makes a good wizard for OpenOffice.org as well.
Wizard for OO---oops! (Score:2)
Maybe the uSoft secret weapon here is to patent their CC wizard to stop OO from making one?
Re:Why do you need an add-in? (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Why do you need an add-in? (Score:5, Informative)
There is; on the web badge code, the following (or, depending on the license, something similar) is encapsulated:
<rdf:RDF xmlns="http://web.resource.org/cc/"
xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-synta
<Work rdf:about="">
<license rdf:resource="http://creativecommons.org/licenses
</Work>
<License rdf:about="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by
<requires rdf:resource="http://web.resource.org/cc/Attribut
<permits rdf:resource="http://web.resource.org/cc/Reproduc
<permits rdf:resource="http://web.resource.org/cc/Distribu
<permits rdf:resource="http://web.resource.org/cc/Derivati
<requires rdf:resource="http://web.resource.org/cc/Notice"
</License>
</rdf:RDF>
It's up to the browser/search engine/application as to what is done with it.
Re:Why do you need an add-in? (Score:1)
There is a Firefox extension [mozilla.org] that displays the 3 symbols (By, NC, SA) in your status bar as they are found in an RDF chunk in the page you're visiting.
Re:Why do you need an add-in? (Score:5, Informative)
From advanced search [google.com]:
Return results that are:
- not filtered by license
- free to use or share
- free to use or share, even commercially
- free to use share or modify
- free to use, share or modify, even commercially
More info [google.com]
Google Creative Commons Search = good (Score:1)
Yay. So now we need a feature in web site designers/blogging tools to label things. Word documents are islands of text, not interlinked hypertext media. Adding CC license tags to web pages and media files would be far more useful.
Re:Why do you need an add-in? (Score:2)
Here's why I think it's useful. (Score:2)
It's an add-in
Very Strange (Score:2)
That seems an odd idea.
At first glance it just seems silly. Why make something free redistributable, and then employ a technology designed to prevent redistribution. So no-one's going to be using the DRM in that way. What else is there?
I can't see how the non-commercial aspect is going to be enforced. You can set property
Re:Why do you need an add-in? (Score:1)
Re:Why do you need an add-in? (Score:1)
Finite9 is dead-on right (and his post should be modded up) -- reading through nearly all the posts in this topic I'm dismayed by how little Creative Commons is understood (and how much copyright in general is misunderstood). I follow the issue very closely because I'm a professional writer (both within the industry as a technical writer and as an author of fiction) and have written code for commercial distribution (nowadays I limit my engineering efforts to open source projects) and it's a part of my profe
Re:Why do you need an add-in? (Score:1)
--finite9
Why should they need to? (Score:5, Insightful)
Why isn't media created free/public domain unless its creator wants it protected?
Re:Why should they need to? (Score:5, Informative)
This is the exact opposite of what the law says. If you create an original work of any kind, whether or not you register it with the copyright office it is still copyrighted to you and no one can do anything with it without your permission. If you don't put a license on it, then it is assumed that you are reserving all of your rights not waiving all of your rights.
Re:Why should they need to? (Score:2)
Simple, when you get around to wanting to sue someone over it, you file your registration, which you can do at any time.
Re:Why should they need to? (Score:1, Insightful)
Of course if he didn't beat you to it.
Re:Why should they need to? (Score:2)
Re:Why should they need to? (Score:2)
As another person alluded, it also doesn't prove that you made the document, only that you (ostensibly) mailed a copy of it.
Re:Why should they need to? (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Why should they need to? (Score:1)
Re:Why should they need to? (Score:3, Insightful)
Go back later? (Score:2)
Re:Why should they need to? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Why should they need to? (Score:1)
i got ball this is my adress 108 20 37 av corona come n do it iam give u the copyright so I can hit you wit it [slashdot.org]
-- With Love, the **AA
Buy the t-shirt today! [spreadshirt.com]
Re:Why should they need to? (Score:3, Insightful)
We tried that. Publishing companies (think of RIAA, but without the need for good PR) simply said that the author didn't delcare a copyright, and made millions without giving a dime to said author until they were taken to court.
It's trivial to make something public domain. CC makes it a bit more complicated, but they do have a theoretical way to authenticate what is and is not allowed, which nicely removes the only prob
Re:I was wrong (Score:1)
Not Office 2K? (Score:2)
Re:Not Office 2K? (Score:4, Informative)
"Smart tags" were also introduced in Office XP, the most popular one being the one where you choose the paste settings after you've seen the results of pasting with default settings, but it wouldn't make even less sense to package this functionality as a tag.
Re:Not Office 2K? (Score:1)
Direct link to screenshot (Score:1, Informative)
i.n.com.com/i/ne/p/2006/ccprompt_466x359.jpg
What's the point (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:What's the point (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:What's the point (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:What's the point (Score:1)
I'm assuming you meant proprietary. Sorry, that's the spelling nazi in me.
After Validation? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:After Validation? (Score:3, Interesting)
Microsoft has a problem - We hate them, and they fear us.
We have the techology to pirate their products, the motivation to do so even if we don't like using them, and the influence to convince others to either switch to Linux or use the pirated copies we give them rather than buying.
You'll notice that this only works in the two most recent versions of Office. Why, do you suppose, they chose not to include it in all of them? It has nothing to do with XML - All
Re:After Validation? (Score:2)
Why? And what about OpenOffice? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Why? And what about OpenOffice? (Score:1)
Re:Why? And what about OpenOffice? (Score:3)
Do you insist on saying M$ because:
a) Your pandering to the Linux Zealot crowd, where as you think any Microsoft bash will result in more Karma coming your way?
or...
b) You are just trying to inform time consumed folks how biased your opinions are, so as to save them from wasting more time reading whatever else it is you have to say?
If its B, I thank you for the courtesy and time savings you have given me!
Re:Why? And what about OpenOffice? (Score:3, Insightful)
No, he's saying M$ because it's appropriate. Helps remind people that M$ is still taxing the world $40,000,000,000+ per year for about a dozen programs mostly written more than a decade a go with the most difficult bit, the device drivers, largely written by third parties.
---
Marketing talk is not just cheap, it has negative value. Free speech can be compromised just as much by too much noise as too little signal.
AutoLawyer (Score:2)
Creative commons isn't a good thing (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Creative commons isn't a good thing (Score:2)
Re:Creative commons isn't a good thing (Score:1)
Re:Creative commons isn't a good thing (Score:1)
The first method (Score:1, Funny)
But of course, the image was copyrighted.
That screenshot is a fake! (Score:5, Funny)
That screenshot looks nothing like Ballmer!
Microsoft...Creative Commons... (Score:2, Funny)
Hive mind stack overflow at 0xEE00FF33
Core dumped.
Cats living with dogs!
Seriously, what am I to make of this?
CC muddy themselves by association with the Devil.
M$ send confusing message about IP
Isn't this a little backwards? (Score:2, Interesting)
What good is an `open' license if the format in which it's published is closed and restrictive?
Re:Isn't this a little backwards? (Score:1)
Re:Isn't this a little backwards? (Score:1)
Clue? (Score:2)
Call me when.. (Score:3)
They develop a plugin to read ODF files. Thats kind of what I thought this was - by way of gross misunderstanding - and i was about to jump for joy. Then maybe people wont have to keep two versions of a document depending on who they are sending it to.
Improper licensing - What if... (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Improper licensing - What if... (Score:3, Interesting)
This has already happened many times. When George Romero released Night of the Living Dead, they forgot to put a copyright notice on the film [wikipedia.org]. The law back then stated that you must put a copyright notice on your work to maintain copyright. Because of this, this film is now in the public domain.
My example is a bit different, but the main point is this: once something is released to the public, anyone who receives the work gains all the rights of fair use, as well as any others that you give them. The
You know why? (Score:5, Interesting)
I really think this is only just the beginning of a broader DRM tool.
Re:You know why? (Score:3)
I wrote it, it is mine, my Intellectual Precious! DRMollum! DRMollum!
Very smart... (Score:2)
Please don't use this! (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Please don't use this! (Score:1, Interesting)
What kind of guarntee is there that I will be any more able to open an OpenOffice file 10 years down the road than to open an Office XP file? OpenDocument is a standard, but standar
Mod Parent Up! (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Please don't use this! (Score:2)
Right now, today, anyone who can't read a
Are proprietar
Re:Please don't use this! (Score:3, Interesting)
I was at least as concerned about the future as I was about today. And I've never been happy with the output of imported Word files in OpenOffice.org and other similar software; the formatting's usually screwy in some way or another. (Obviously, HTML/CSS formatting is different from one program to another, but HTML/CSS at least doesn't try to be WYSIWYG.) If the content is essentially textual so the loss of formatting doesn't matter
Re:Please don't use this! (Score:2)
Seriously folks. It's a freakin document format. And last I checked, OpenOffice can read Word files anyway. I'm assuming 10 years from now, even if Word does disappear off the face of the Earth, OpenOffice will still read Word files. It's not like Word files are using some ultra secure encryption that only Microsoft will ever be able to decipher.
Suppose I'll go don my flame proof suit now...
Re:Please don't use this! (Score:4, Interesting)
True, but the format is documented so any future software can easily implement it, preserving the same formatting as the publisher intended. The same cannot be said about Word in spite of your assertions (or at least, OpenOffice.org doesn't yet maintain Word document formatting precisely). There's also other formats available; if you're really concerned about long-term preservation, I'd recommend something like HTML or plain text (for documents in which the prime concern is information); or TeX (for documents [incl. ppt slides] in whch formatting is important). I realise that TeX isn't especially fun for newbies, so OpenOffice.org documents (which are human readable even without software designed for it) in conjunction with PDF or PostScript is probably a successful compromise.
Also, Word is not the only format in Microsoft Office. One other format likely to be used with this plugin is PowerPoint. As I'm studying for my exams and reading the PPT slides released by my lecturer, I can assure you that OpenOffice.org is far from perfect in importing those, too. Some slides are quite unreadable till I've spent a few minutes fiddling around with them.
(See also my response to your sibling [slashdot.org].)
PS: I think your attitude is quite common amongst Slashdotters, which is why I felt the need to express mine; I fear yours is in the majority. I doubt you need a flame-proof suit any more than I do.
PPS: Sorry about my tone/language, I'm in a funny mood right now and I've been reading stuff written in a funny way, so I can't quite get rid of it...
Re:Please don't use this! (Score:2)
Or, I could be wrong, and they just express agreement/disagreement in different ways.
I wonder how many of geniuses at MS... (Score:3)
I'm glad I have /. to keep me informed of the latest bleeding edge software development.
Re:I wonder how many of geniuses at MS... (Score:2)
after reading your comment, my sarcasm meter caught fire and exploded, inflicting considerable damage on my person and the interior of my office. You will be hearing from my lawyer soon.
Yours truly,
Rolo Tomasi
Wow, 2006 and MS invents cut and paste! (Score:1)
GPL for VisualStudio (Score:1)
requires Windows XP/2003 (Score:1)