[cc-licenses] Unbundling the GPL
zotz at 100jamz.com
Tue Apr 24 09:23:56 EDT 2007
On Tuesday 24 April 2007 08:41 am, Joachim Durchholz wrote:
> drew Roberts schrieb:
> > I think that's his point. Get them to agree on one and then ask CC to
> > bless it.
> > When people who like Free Software see the GPL, BSD, MIT, etc, they see
> > the one they like as good for their use and use it. Why haven't the
> > non-Free freeware guys managed to come up with on in all these years?
> The same question could have been posted in the years before the CC
> initiative started. There's always a date when things get started; if
> the answer to the question "why wasn't this done before" were really
> relevant, nothing would ever be done.
It is true that things need to start somewhere.
> Though, in this particular case, I do have at least a partial answer:
> because those companies that have a legal department good enough to set
> up such a license, they will invariably come up with one that's too
> restrictive for general usage. Corporate lawyers are, after all, charged
> with upholding the company's goals, not with public interest.
So, there is no community? No common interest? All these little guys can't
pool a bit of money and get a license craftet that meets their needs? In all
these years? I personally ran up on freeware and shareware before I
encountered the concept of Free Software. Is there no motivation to find a
common license? No perceived benefit?
> >> Hence the incompatibility
> >> exists. Adding a standardized license would make the freeware more
> >> useful, and could possibly persuade the developers to release it as a
> >> free project later.
> > So, what more do you need than ND gives you?
> The problem is that CC doesn't seem to have checked their standard
> licenses for appropriateness for software.
I didn't ask that. Have you read ND? As a layman, if you are one, what more do
you need than ND gives you? Or do you really think you need NC-ND?
all the best,
(da idea man)
More information about the cc-licenses