[cc-licenses] Restricting Derivative Works
Rob Myers
rob at robmyers.org
Sat Jun 24 09:00:33 EDT 2006
On 23 Jun 2006, at 22:46, Terry Hancock wrote:
> Terry Hancock wrote:
>> White, Phil wrote:
>>> This is the second time you have besmirched my character.
>>
>> Greg has said nothing to indicate that you *would* do this. The
>> point
>> is that you legally *could*
>
> Friend Phil has just replied to me off-list to say, basically, 'yes
> he did'
> (if he wants a more accurate portrayal, he can post here, IMHO).
I really don't think Greg did. He is explaining how projects *in
general* look to people who may be contributors, and how to make sure
these potential contributors feel they have enough of a contract with
the project that they can contribute without feeling that they might
ever be exploited. He is not saying anything about *this project's
leader* specifically.
> I won't quote that in the interests of protecting the guilty, but
> he also
> asserted that the case for free-copyleft versus proprietary-assignment
> was not proven.
The FSF take copyright assignment but they license their assignments
under a copyleft license. They put the case for copyleft as an
ethical one, but if we believe Eric Raymond then the case has been
proven in terms of efficiency.
> The obvious counterexamples are H2G2 vs Wikipedia and
> 'shared source' or 'community source' and free-licensed open-source
> software.
Within Free Software if we compare Linux and Copland, or IIS and
Apache, again we see ethical and efficiency wins.
But then there are "gated community" projects like myspace, youtube
and Geocities. Where not-open sites hold more content than open sites
like Ourmedia. I've not really thought about those in Free terms,
although they certainly are not Free.
> However, the conclusions there are subjective.
I would say that the numbers speak for themselves. But it's important
not to mistake popularity for success...
- Rob.
More information about the cc-licenses
mailing list