[cc-licenses] Use cases for cc by-sa compatibility with GPL
invernomuto at paranoici.org
Wed Jan 11 17:05:58 EST 2012
On Thu, 5 Jan 2012 10:02:47 -0500 drew Roberts wrote:
> On Wednesday 04 January 2012 07:46:52 Ben Finney wrote:
> > If so, then I don't understand why that distinction is important. Why
> > should we support dividing up the freedoms in a work depending on
> > whether the recipient can use it as a program?
> If we could nail down "source" requirements for non-code, there would be less
> of a need to make this distinction.
I am convinced that a definition of source code for non-programmatic
software works (that is to say, what you call "non-code") has already
been nailed down.
It's the same definition that holds for programmatic software works and
is included in the GNU GPL (I would especially refer to version 2):
"the preferred form of the work for making modifications to it."
I think that this definition embodies what is really needed to avoid
putting recipients in a position of (technical) disadvantage with
respect to the author, when it comes to making modifications to the
> > Do recipients of non-program works deserve fewer freedoms?
> In my mind, they do not deserve fewer freedoms. But in the mind of the folks
> behind the GPL, they do deserve fewer freedoms. (To use that terminology.)
> So, I don't want any of my non-code works to fall under their licensing
> control as I do not trust them to be concerned about preserving those same
> freedoms for my non code as they intend to preserve for my code.
I think that releasing a work and allowing it to be distributed under
the terms of the GNU GPL, does *not* put this work under the "licensing
control" of the FSF.
Especially when a finite set of GPL versions is chosen, rather than
"version X or later" (which is a infinite set of possible versions,
namely version X + any existing or future versions published by the FSF
later than version X).
It's true (and unfortunate) that the FSF promotes lower freedom
standards for non-programmatic software works.
However, it does not do so by publishing a GNU GPL that holds
non-programmatic software works to these lower standards (at least, it
hasn't yet, and I hope it will never do that).
What the FSF does, in order to promote lower freedom standards for
non-programmatic software works, is recommending the adoption of other
licenses than the GPL for those works.
Hence, by adopting the GNU GPL for a work, one is really holding this
work to the higher freedom standards that the FSF thinks only programs
deserve (but that I personally think all software works, both
programmatic and non-programmatic, deserve).
New GnuPG key, see the transition document!
..................................................... Francesco Poli .
GnuPG key fpr == CA01 1147 9CD2 EFDF FB82 3925 3E1C 27E1 1F69 BFFE
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Size: 836 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/cc-licenses/attachments/20120111/98361c57/attachment.bin
More information about the cc-licenses