15

This question already has an answer here:

Suppose I was finishing up an open source software. I needed to license it under an open source license.

My question:

Why would I not want to license my software under a Creative Commons license?

Why are other licenses such as MIT licenses better for this?

marked as duplicate by RubberDuck, curiousdannii, kdopen, overactor, Gilles 'SO- stop being evil' Aug 29 '15 at 11:57

This question has been asked before and already has an answer. If those answers do not fully address your question, please ask a new question.

  • The Creative Commons licenses are also not compatible with the GNU GPL, an heavily used free software license, while the MIT (Expat) license is compatible with all GPL versions. – Calinou Jul 6 '15 at 19:56
21

Short answer: because the CC licenses have not been designed for software and source code.

This is answered by Creative Commons themselves in their FAQ:

Unlike software-specific licenses, CC licenses do not contain specific terms about the distribution of source code, which is often important to ensuring the free reuse and modifiability of software. Many software licenses also address patent rights, which are important to software but may not be applicable to other copyrightable works. Additionally, our licenses are currently not compatible with the major software licenses, so it would be difficult to integrate CC-licensed work with other free software. Existing software licenses were designed specifically for use with software and offer a similar set of rights to the Creative Commons licenses.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.