5 reasons not to choose a Creative Commons license for code 8
Although Creative Commons licenses are fine for many types of content, you should probably think twice before using it for code, and here are my top 5 reason why:
5. Creative Commons has summaries for actual software licenses as well. —It may only be GPL and LGPL, however, if the summary feature attracted you to Creative Commons and you liked the GPL or LGPL license but thought they were too long for the average person to read; it’s not a bad reason to switch from Creative Commons.
4. Creative Commons is pretty plainly GPL incompatible. —Even the least restrictive Creative Commons version has a clause that allows the original author to remove the original copyright notice from derivative works. This is a restriction beyond those offered in the GPL thus you can’t combine Creative Commons code with GPL. This shrinks your Open Source target audience in the area of code reuse and contributions, but that’s your decision. See also Debian-Legal Creative Commons Summary.
3. While the Creative Commons Attibution summary reads like the new BSD license, it’s a summary, not a license, read the actual license you may not like it.—If it turns out all you liked was the summary, you should have used the new BSD license, the MIT license, or the U of I license, they are all pretty much the same and you don’t have to worry about summaries (they are easy to read).
2. Not OSI approved, and for good reason.—Nothing in the license sounds remotely like it could apply to software, and it’s not very neutral in it’s description of covered works. Sure if you change a word here and there, maybe it could apply to software, but if you have to change words around to make it work, it’s a pretty poor choice for your open source software. See also Open Source Definition. See also list of OSI approved licenses.
1. The Creative Commons F.A.Q. tells you not to use it for software.—And I can’t think of a better reason than that.