[cc-licenses] CC strategic elements
zotz at 100jamz.com
Sun May 13 18:31:36 EDT 2007
On Sunday 13 May 2007 04:07 pm, Joachim Durchholz wrote:
> drew Roberts schrieb:
> > Perhaps if CC were to offer all while strongly promoting only the Free
> > there would not be as much concern.
> I'd like such a strategy.
> > Also, if there were a Free CC brand to clearly
> > distinguish between the Free and non-Free, it may work better.
> Would be fine by me.
> Though I see a possibility for disagreements here. The same license
> might be considered "free (libre) enough" in one area and non-free in
> another (e.g. software needs many more freedoms than text to be free).
Which of hte four freedoms do you suggest can be dropped?
> >> It's one of the things I dislike about the FSF. They're trying to draw
> >> me into their position even in those situations where I don't want to.
> > Well, sure they do. Just don't get drawn into things you don't agree
> > with.
> Of course, they're free to take a "take it or leave it" stance.
> My problem is that I'm left with no good alternative when "take" is not
> what I want.
Between all of the Free licenses that they list, what do you lack?
> >> It's also an effective strategy. It's CC's obligation to decide whether
> >> they want to be nice or effective, and their judgement call whether
> >> being nice might be more effective in the very long run.
> > I don't see the FSF as not being nice. (They may or may not be.) There is
> > a world of either FUD or serious misunderstanding surrounding the GPL
> > though.
> >>>> On the minus side, this strategy has prevented the FSF from
> >>>> creating a license for those cases where ND would have been
> >>>> legitimate, polarizing the programmer community into those that
> >>>> are "pro" and "contra" and preventing an unideological
> >>>> discourse.
> >>> I see this as a plus. CC needs something similar in my view. And
> >>> it is still possible to have a calm and respectful discourse even
> >>> with the FSF taking such a stand on the license side.
> >> It is possible, of course, but no other license has draw so much
> >> ideological debate.
> > Sure, because it is the one that makes demands of you if you want to
> > sell/distribute the code or build upon the code and sell/distribute
> > your work. Demands that you not restrict others just as you were not
> > restricted. People want to be free to restrict others. Can you see a
> > way around this issue?
> There are *many* things that are being criticised.
> One is that they are being "socialist", on the grounds that they are
> trying to destroy the software market.
I have seen this accusation, but I consider it FUD. I can see it as bringing
Free Market principles back to the software marketplace. I have seen claims
that the GPL falls in line with Christian principles.
> (The latter is certainly true for
> the classical sell-the-software, lock-the-customers-in,
> milk-the-customers market, of course, and good riddance to it.)
But you can sell GPL sortware, you don't get to play the "use copyright to
lock in the customer game" though.
> Another is that they are driving an ideological debate. (Empathically
> declared that software should be liberated just as the slaves were is
> just one example.)
If I remember rightly, it is put forward on ethical or moral grounds, the
ideology seems to follow.
> Ideology can mobilize the masses, so it can help a cause; on the other
> hand, it does provoke counter-ideology, heated debates and flamewars, so
> it can be detrimental, too.
> The problem is that many think that the adverse effects outweigh the
> advantages. And many are simply repelled by ideology per se.
Then they need to work on a better Free, copyleft license that is compatible
with the GPL.
> The third one is what I have been presenting as my position: that the
> GPL and LGPL are too limited choices, that there are legitimate cases
> outside the spectrum that the FSF recognizes.
There is MIT, BSD, and on and on. Or do you mean non-Free cases are legitmate?
> And the fourth one is the one that you have introduced: that there are
> always the sleazy types who'd like to restrict where they were not
> restricted themselves.
> I don't have much respect for that stance, nor would any other informed
> person, I'd think :-)
I don't see that as a widely held position myself. There is a lot of" all for
me baby" thinking going around.
> >> Of course, that may also be because the GPL is from people who see
> >> ideology as an important part of their work.
> > Thereis that, but I am not sure you can make a copyleft license that will
> > not have the same issues no matter how little ideology you have behind
> > it.
> SA *is* a copyleft license.
> Yet CC does not have the first of the three issues above:
> * CC is not considered "socialist".
I wouldn't know.
> * CC is not doing an ideological debate.
I think they are. A different one perhaps, but one none the less.
> * CC offers a wide spectrum of licenses.
Yes they do. I don't see this as a plus myself.
> What other issues would there be?
CC has one Free-Copyleft license, BY-SA. It gets a lot of the same objections
to it that the GPL does.
> > And the stated ideology/philosophy can lead to trust where no stated
> > ideaology can leave one uneasy.
> Can't say I'm uneasy about CC...
Well, I am more uneasy about where they actually stand than I am about where
the FSF stands.
> > The FSF maintains a list of Free licenses and comments on them from their
> > point of view.
> > They want to promote and protect Free Software. How can they go about
> > doing this better than they currently do? (License wise.)
> Reword and recheck the CC licenses for software, for example.
Why would the FSF reword and recheck the CC licenses for software? One thing I
do find lacking in the FSF is that they basically take their positions with
respect to software and not to art. Mind you, perhaps they are better off
sticking to the software realm.
all the best,
(da idea man)
More information about the cc-licenses