Shared publicly  - 
Thinking about putting my web tutorials under the creative commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported (CC BY-NC-SA 3.0) licence.

Peter Hayduk's profile photoJovan Kostovski's profile photoLars Vogel's profile photoKai Toedter's profile photo
The beerware license would be better but this one sounds good too.
Nice gesture Lars ;)
The other option to license your tutorials would be the GNU Free Documentation License (FDL) from the Free Software Foundation
The rough comparison between GNU FDL and CC BY-NC 3.0 would be that both licenses give the users the same freedom to modify share and publish the modified versions, they must publish the modified versions under the same license as the original and must give credit to the original author (must state that their work is modification of some other work and state the author).
The only notable differences are that CC BY-NC 3.0 is restricting the modified version to be used for non commercial purposes (GNU FDL works for commercial and noncommercial use) and the GNU FDL demands that some parts of the original work must not be changed in the modified version.
Feel free to ask if you need more details ;)
+Jovan Kostovski thanks for the explanation. I think only non-commercial usage of others is the right selection for me.
+Lars Vogel Yes that's true. The CC licenses are the commonly used for blogs or web site writings and digital art. On the other hand GNU FDL is used mostly for licensing books, manuals, student thesis, conference papers...
Because you're planing to use a license only for your web tutorials on than go with the CC license.
If you plan to release all of your tutorials under CC you can add something like "Unless otherwise stated, Works are licensed under Creative Commons by-nc-sa version 3.0" somewhere on the site and play with exceptions ;)
Why do you want to use "Unported" instead of "Germany"?
+Lars Vogel I was thinking on the same thing, the tutorials published on your web page.
The difference between the ported and unported license is that the ported license is associated with a some specific legislation/country. Here is the link to the German CC Affiliate network
+Kai Toedter Good question. The choice is usually made by the target audience which the work will have. Lars is well known worldwide, so I think unported license would be good because it will be valid globally. In this case, the choice depends if Lars wants German legislation to be used in case of license violation or it will be legislation invariant and effective globally.
+Jovan Kostovski The reason why I usually use CC BY-NC-SA 3.0 Germany is: In case of a violation I want to have German legislation because that's the legislation I know best and I live in Germany. For instance, if a violation happens in China, Chinese legislation could be applied, and that's probably not what I want (no offense :). Am I wrong about that? Regarding the target audience, even if I use Germany legislation, the license is valid world-wide. Only in case of a violation the legislation would be applied anyway.
+Kai Toedter I totally agree with you. I said that the usual practice is to analyze the target audience and to apply the proper license. It's up to the author's preference which legislation he/she wants to be used in case of violation.
+Jovan Kostovski +Kai Toedter but I think it makes sense. I change the upcoming blog post to CC BY-NC-SA 3.0 Germany. Thanks.
Add a comment...