[cc-licenses] Parallel Distribution and Non-Copyleft Licenses
James Grimmelmann
james at grimmelmann.net
Sat Dec 2 15:08:28 EST 2006
drew Roberts wrote:
> On Saturday 02 December 2006 11:55 am, James Grimmelmann wrote:
>> That is, with software, you need source code in order to
>> make full use of the relevant freedoms; with many other sorts of works,
>> you do not need the source code to enjoy those freedoms.
>
> I disagree with this strongly. I just feel that it is next to impossible to
> properly express such a "source" requirement in simple language and so have
> to content myself to live without it.
With an oil painting, a "source" requirement would be not just difficult
to express but impossible to implement. This is not a problem of
definitions. It would be ridiculous to ask a painter to make a
"modifiable" version available.
> We are in fact much poorer for nat having the source though.
>
> James, please answer this for me. Why do you insist that it is essential to
> allow my works to be used on a platform where only the blessed can put them
> there? (I will by the way, at this point, allow mine on there if the blessed
> will pay for the use of my works.)
It is not essential. It is merely a good idea and more consistent with
Creative Commons's goals than the alternative currently under discussion.
James
More information about the cc-licenses
mailing list