To developers of FOSS:
Please do not use Creative Commons/CC licenses (other than CC0) for your code! Some CC licenses are incompatible with things people may do with your code, like package it for distributions, derive new works from it, or even sell it on discs at loss to schools. The GNU GPL, BSD, MIT, etc. licenses are much better for software.
CC licenses don't target software, meaning using one could cause serious legal trouble for you.
If you have come across software which has been put under a Creative Commons license, I urge you to create a ticket or talk with the lead developer or copyright holder about changing the license to something more appropriate.
Suggested switches (similar licensing terms, most popular listed):
CC0: CC0 is acceptable for software, but 0BSD or Unlicense also works
CC-BY: MIT or BSD
CC-BY-SA: GNU GPL
CC-BY-NC: GNU GPL
CC-BY-NC-SA: GNU GPL
CC-BY-ND: GNU GPL
CC-BY-ND-NC: GNU GPL
GNU GPL works as a substited for NonCommercial (NC) since the source code must be provided. This, coupled with the fact that the work can be freely shared means that any commercial effort would be easily and legally circumvented by the community. Sold software under the GPL would really only be physical media sold to those who can only use physical media, like relief efforts, schools, or off-grid/isolated people.
What's wrong with CC-BY-SA?
Obviously the ND and NC variants are not compatible with the GPL, but CC-BY-SA seems alright, isn't it?
@smcameron @jxself The CC-BY-SA is a great license for non-software and non-database works, but this post focused specifically on how it, and related CC licenses are inadequate for software in an attempt to steer programmers away from using them for their software specifically.
I would encourage everyone to use CC licenses for their works, just not for software.
Fosstodon is an English speaking Mastodon instance that is open to anyone who is interested in technology; particularly free & open source software.