ideoplast.org License

Except as otherwise noted, material on this site, ideoplast.org, is owned, and copyright held by, Michael Wojcik (). Where no specific copyright notice appears, “Copyright © 2008 by Michael Wojcik” should be assumed.

For the XHTML and CSS source used on this site and owned by Michael Wojcik, perpetual, non-exclusive license is granted for copying and use for any purpose under the terms of the Apache license, Version 2.0, with certain amendments. Attribution is appreciated but not required, but explicitly or implicitly claiming other authorship is prohibited. I do not assert rights over derivative works.

Other materials on the site owned by Michael Wojcik may be used to the extent permitted by the “fair use” provisions of copyright law. They may also be reproduced in their entirety, unaltered, and with attribution, for any purpose.

These license terms may be altered at any time without notice.

Separately Licensed Materials

The image files in image/public are taken from US Federal government web sites. To the best of my knowledge they are in the public domain.

The image files in image/cc-by-nc-sa and image/cc-by-sa are licensed under a Creative Commons license. See the cc-by-nc-sa attributions page and the cc-by-sa attributions page for more information.

The image files in image/image-after are derived from images taken from the Image * After collection. See Image * After : Terms for their terms of use.

The Apache License (as Amended)

The license for the XHTML and CSS materials on this site (and possibly other materials, as noted in their individual licensing statements) is an amended version of the Apache License Version 2.0. The amendments consist of removing the conditions a-d of the Redistribution section. This releases you from having to supply a copy of this license in derivative works, provide notice of changes, etc.

The official reference to the license follows:

Copyright 2008 Michael Wojcik

Licensed under the Apache License, Version 2.0 (the "License"); you may not use this file except in compliance with the License. You may obtain a copy of the License at

http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0

Unless required by applicable law or agreed to in writing, software distributed under the License is distributed on an "AS IS" BASIS, WITHOUT WARRANTIES OR CONDITIONS OF ANY KIND, either express or implied. See the License for the specific language governing permissions and limitations under the License.

Again, you are released from requirements a, b, c, and d of the Redistribution section of that license, for the purposes of the XHTML and CSS source used on this site, and any other materials here which state they are owned by Michael Wojcik and licensed under the Apache License.

Proleptically-Answered Questions

Questions an that imaginary, probably implausible interlocutor might pose regarding this license, and self-indulgent answers.

Does anyone care about your stinkin' license?

No, probably not. But since the site is public, I feel it's prudent to spell it out anyway.

Are you sure you want to just give stuff away?

Yes.

Even to evil corporations?

Yes. (Not that they want it.)

Why aren't you using a Creative Commons license?

Creative Commons licenses are an overly-complicated, overrated solution to a problem I've never had. If I want to release something, I release it; if I want control over it, I keep it. Byzantine licensing arrangements that let me specify subsets of poorly-defined rights don't give me much additional benefit. (In particular, I don't feel any need to make potential commercial users of my work second-class citizens; I'm a commercial developer myself.)

In my experience, too many people treat CC as the new gospel and Lessig as some new-media IP messiah, apaprently without achieving any sort of critical understanding of his work, his self-promotion, or his disappointing record as a litigator (which makes me wonder how well CC licenses will stand up in court).

I don't have any particular argument against CC licenses. If you like them, by all means use them. I just find them superfluous for my purposes.

Why aren't you using the GNU General Public License?

Because the GPL is the license that makes CC look sensible. When I want a license that requires a user to adopt my personal philosophy in order to use my work, I'll write my own. The GPL is for true believers. I'm not a joiner.