Creative Commons is not a party to this License and makes no warranties with respect to the Work. Creative Commons will not be liable to you or any legal theory for damages of any kind, including, but not limited to, general, special, incidental or consequential damages, arising out of this License. Notwithstanding the two (2) sentences above, if Creative Commons has expressly identified itself as a Licensor, it will have all rights and obligations of Licensor. Free software licenses help mitigate risks against various threats or legal behaviors that developers consider potentially dangerous: the Open Source Initiative (OSI) group defines and maintains a list of approved open source licenses. The OSI agrees with the FSF in all widely used free software licenses, but differs from the FSF`s list in that it agrees against the definition of open source rather than the definition of free software. It considers the Permissive Free Software Licensing Group as a reference implementation of a Free Software license. [Citation needed] [Clarification required] Therefore, the requirements for license approval are different. If you`re not on a website where you can filter or browse royalty-free items, you should look for a copyright notice, which is usually found at the bottom of the page. Some may require payment, others may only require an allocation or credit. If you don`t see anything that explicitly states that the content is royalty-free, it`s probably not available for free use. The Free Software Foundation, the group that maintains the definition of Free Software, maintains a non-exhaustive list of Free Software licenses.
 Except for the limited purpose of informing the public that the work is licensed under the CCPL, neither party will use the Creative Commons trademark or any related Creative Commons trademark or logo without the prior written consent of Creative Commons. Any permitted use will be in accordance with the then-current Creative Commons Trademark Usage Guidelines, which may be posted on the Site or otherwise made available upon request from time to time. In the mid-1980s, the GNU Project produced copyleft free software licenses for each of its software packages. An old license of this type (the GNU Emacs Copying Permission Notice) was used for GNU Emacs in 1985, with subsequent revisions in 1986, 1987, and 1988 as the GNU Emacs General Public License.  Similarly, the similar GCC General Public License was applied to the GNU compiler collection, which was first released in 1987.   The original BSD license is also one of the first free software licenses of 1988. In 1989, version 1 of the GNU General Public License (GPL) was released. Version 2 of the GPL, released in 1991, has become the most widely used free software license.    Around 2004, attorney Lawrence Rosen argued in the essay Why the Public Domain Is Not a Software License Could Not Really Enter the Public Domain and Could Not Be Interpreted as a Very Permissive FOSS License, a position that was rejected by Daniel J.
Amber and others.  In 2012, the dispute was finally settled when Rosen accepted CC0 as an open source license while admitting that, contrary to his earlier claims, copyright can be waived, supported by decisions of the Ninth Circle.  You`ve probably seen the term «royalty-free,» perhaps in archival photos, background music, or other types of intellectual property. But what exactly does this mean? In addition, the gnu free documentation license recommended by the FSF, which is incompatible with the GPL, was considered «non-free» by the Debian project around 2006, Nathanael Nerode and Bruce Perens.  The FSF submits that the documentation differs qualitatively from software and is subject to different requirements. Debian agreed in a later resolution that the GNU FDL complies with Debian free software guidelines when the controversial «immutable section» is removed, but considers it «still not free of problems».  Despite this, most gnu documentation contains «invariant sections.» .