[cc-licenses] OT: clarifying terms [was Re: NC considered harmful? Prove it...]
zotz at 100jamz.com
Thu Mar 8 08:35:11 EST 2007
On Wednesday 07 March 2007 11:52 pm, Luis Villa wrote:
> Apologies for the OT digression; I thought this was worth clarifying
> for Drew, lurkers, and the archives, but many here may not find it
> On 3/7/07, drew Roberts <zotz at 100jamz.com> wrote:
> > On Wednesday 07 March 2007 10:19 pm, Luis Villa wrote:
> > > On 3/7/07, drew Roberts <zotz at 100jamz.com> wrote:
> > > > > > Huh? You have lost me there. Can you explain and give examples?
> > > > > > Isn't this impossible by definition?
> > > > >
> > > > > I use the term 'open source' loosely here; not OSI-approved, but
> > > > > rather in the broader family of source-available software copyright
> > > > > licenses, some of which are similar in spirit to NC.
> > > >
> > > > Now I understand, but I would suggest that this might not be the best
> > > > way to go if you care about Free or Open Source projects.
> > >
> > > Could you elaborate/explain what you mean here?
> > Sure. I can try at least.
> > I am finding people using open source and copyleft and other terms in
> > ways that are less than accurate. I think this is going to lead to extra
> > confusion. I don't think it is worth doing.
> Using "open source" precisely is impossible because no one really
> knows what it means. To quote OSI's own definition page:
> "[T]he term [open source] has become widely used and its meaning has
> lost some precision."
You are correct here, but I think you are making my point for me. We got here
because of people not using open source precisely. (Either out of ignorance
or on purpose.)
> So, yes, you're correct, there is no such thing as an OSI Certified
> (TM) non-commercial license, but there are many licenses with various
> non-commercial clauses which are open source within the general, more
> widely used meaning of the word.
I don't think people who care about FOSS should go down that road is all I am
saying. Should I not have thought you might care? (I am not asking this with
> For a recent discussion of the problems with the definition of 'open
> source', you might want to read
I know that there have been problems from the break actually.
> and followups:
> You'll find that I use the term Free Software with an almost religious
> fetish for accuracy. This is possible because the term has both a
> clear written definition *and* a long and strong tradition of specific
> usage which conforms with that written definition.
I try to do that as well although that too is a constant struggle. I tend to
like the english language a lot, but this is one case where I wish we had our
own libre and gratis...
> Tangentially, I think in your journal entry you confuse copyleft with
> FSF Free Software licenses; the concepts are related, but as the FSF's
> copyleft page notes, "[c]opyleft is a general concept; there are many
> ways to fill in the details."
Actually, I don't.
> The key to copyleft is not the specific
> freedoms guaranteed, but rather the use of copyright to force further
> redistribution under specific terms.
I disagree with this. I think it is an "all rights reversed" situation. It is
not the specifi license or how the terms of the license guarantee the
freedoms, but I do think you can't have a non-Free work properly considered
> So the CC-SA family (inc. NC) are
> copyleft licenses.
My take is: BY-SA yes, BY-NC-SA no. So, given my take on this, copyleft and
sharealike would not be synonyms.
> In the future, you might want to link to
> http://freedomdefined.org/Licenses#Copyleft as a definition of
> copyleft; it is more clear and concise than the FSF or wikipedia
I wouldn't as I disagree with the take there. Perhaps if it changes. You will
find if you check that I have been contributing there already though.
> P.S. I was slightly miffed that you seemed to imply that I didn't
> understand what open source meant, and/or that I didn't care. On
> re-reading, I realize this is probably my own fault for misreading
> what you said, but you might want to be more clear in your own
> language when it might be construed to be condescending to others.
Thanks for the input. I do try. I fail more than I would like though so I try
not to take offence when the responses hint that I failed. (Not that this one
I try and treat most of my email as converstaions. They are far from realtime
though and they don't carry a lot of the extra info that a face to face
conversation do so it is easy to misread things. It is also easy to miswrite
them as well...
all the best,
(da idea man)
More information about the cc-licenses