[cc-licenses] Unbundling the GPL
greglondon.1 at gmail.com
Thu Apr 26 18:15:58 EDT 2007
On 4/26/07, Joachim Durchholz <jo at durchholz.org> wrote:
> Greg London schrieb:
> > On 4/26/07, Joachim Durchholz <jo at durchholz.org> wrote:
> >> Terry Hancock schrieb:
> >> >
> >> > 2) Shareware is an utter economic and technical failure, whereas Free
> >> > Software is rocking the planet.
> >> That depends.
> >> The original idea died very quickly.
> >> However, it quickly mutated into "try before you buy", and that has
> >> a success.
> > This only reinforces my point that NC and ND are proprietary licenses.
> Non sequitur.
> That a concept applies to a successful business doesn't mean it's
> useless for noncommercial activities.
I had said previously in this thread that NC and ND are proprietary
Some people HOWLED in disagreement.
The main exception that was produced in an attempt to prove me wrong
was that there are a number of people who think "Money is evil" and think
releasing a work under NC will keep it from becomeing evil.
The experience of the software world and noncommercial restrictions
show that these people are ignorant (don't know) or irrational.
I'm not going to design licenses for irrational people or encourage
people choose a license for irrational reasons.
The only rational reason someone would choose NC or ND is because
it benefits them more than it benefits the community. Because they want
to maintain an advantage of rights over the community.
So, then you go and say NC and ND are a perfect license to choose
for a "try before you buy" situation. And all I said was that it proves
the rational reason for NC and ND is to give a free sample (try) for
the eventual benefit of the author (buy).
I pointed out that you EXACTLY prove my position that it's a proprietary
If you want to call it a non-sequitor because it wasn't the immediate topic,
fine. Just note for future reference that your example exactly proves
just where NC and ND are, to use your words, "a success".
NC-ND is a "try before you BUY" license.
it is a proprietary license.
That is where it is most successful.
Greg, I'm terribly sorry, but I think it's a waste of time arguing with you.
> This doesn't mean that your beliefs and values are baseless or
> something. It's just that I think you're not doing a good job at
> explaining them in a way that I can accept, and that I'm not doing a
> good job at explaining my beliefs to you in a way that you can accept.
Mostly , the problem is that every time I describe the functional effect
of a license clause or language, you almost immediate reply as if
I made some moral judgement.
Proprietary isn't evil. It's a descriptor of how something works.
I said NC and ND are proprietary licenses.
Your reply was that "That a concept applies to a successful business
doesn't mean it's useless for noncommercial activities."
And you completely miss the point that "proprietary" doesn't
have anything to do with "business" or "noncommercial activities".
It has to do with who holds the rights to the work.
I could write something, license it All Rights Reserved, and
that would be a proprietary license. I might not make a dime
on that work. But I would hold all the rights to the work.
I might write something and license it CC-ND-NC-BY and
never charge money for it. But it is still a proprietary license.
I may choose that licnese because I think money is evil,
or I may choose that license because I want you to
come and buy my software, but either way it is a proprietary
license because I withold rights from the community to
maintain an advantage over them.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the cc-licenses