[cc-community] "CC-GNU GPL" & GFDL

Fred Benenson fred.benenson at gmail.com
Thu Mar 13 12:32:02 EDT 2008


I'm not sure I'm reading this thread right -- is it that there are licenses
out there that should be declared under FreedomDefined that aren't but
should be, OR is it that there should be more licenses out there (that use
the CC icons) that should be created under the guidelines of FD OR that
there are licenses that already exist that should be given the 3-datatype
treatment (human, lawyer, machine)?

The latter seems the most reasonable (and probable) while the middle seems
problematic as it would almost certainly invoke license proliferation and
require more lawyers writing more potentially incompatible licenses.



On Wed, Mar 12, 2008 at 6:39 PM, Terry Hancock <hancock at anansispaceworks.com>
wrote:

> Jon Phillips wrote:
> > What? freedomdefined is more neutral than CC ;)
>
> Yes, of course. Because "freedom defined" doesn't create licenses, they
> are a neutral observer. They just evaluate licenses according to certain
> criteria.
>
> CC has a vested interest in promoting its own licenses, no matter how
> well-intentioned it or its representatives are.
>
> Cheers,
> Terry
>
> --
> Terry Hancock (hancock at AnansiSpaceworks.com)
> Anansi Spaceworks http://www.AnansiSpaceworks.com
>
> _______________________________________________
> cc-community mailing list
> cc-community at lists.ibiblio.org
> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-community
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/cc-community/attachments/20080313/29dc9c5a/attachment.htm 


More information about the cc-community mailing list