licensing open-source-software creative-commons
Why is the CC-BY license so long?
<p>The <a href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/legalcode" rel="nofollow noreferrer">CC-BY 4.0</a> license is 1,958 words.</p>

<p>As I understand it, the <a href="https://opensource.org/licenses/MIT" rel="nofollow noreferrer">MIT license</a> is functionally equivalent to CC-BY: it established that you can do <em>whatever</em> with the published work, as long as you give credit.</p>

<p>But the MIT license is just 162 words, most of which are in the disclaimer. The <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ISC_license" rel="nofollow noreferrer">ISC license</a>, which should be functionally equivalent to the MIT license, is even shorter: just 111 words.</p>

<p>Why is the CC-BY <em>so much</em> longer than the MIT or ISC license, even though it offers the same conditions? Or this question could also be reversed: why are the MIT/ISC licenses so short compared to the CC-BY license?</p>

<p>You have a false premise: "it offers the same conditions", and "MIT license is functionally equivalent to CC-BY". These premises are not true.</p>

<p>CC-BY:</p>

<ul>
<li>applies to more than just software; it applies to artistic or literary work, databases, other material</li>
<li>disclaims endorsement</li>
<li>explicitly withholds moral rights</li>
<li>explicitly does not license patent rights (MIT license gives anyone who obtains a copy of the software the right to use it, a patent right)</li>
<li>prescribes the acceptable forms of attribution</li>
</ul>

<p>Those are just some of the differences.</p>
