Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

cc-licenses - Re: public domain question

cc-licenses AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Development of Creative Commons licenses

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: "J.B. Nicholson-Owens" <jbn AT forestfield.org>
  • To: Discussion on the Creative Commons license drafts <cc-licenses AT lists.ibiblio.org>
  • Subject: Re: public domain question
  • Date: Tue, 01 Feb 2005 22:41:08 -0600

Greg London wrote:
Here is the simple logical argument in 4 easy steps.

(1) GPL asserts it is "free as in free speech, not free beer"

Actually, the GPL doesn't say this. Nowhere in the GPL will you find
that language. The phrase "free as in free speech, not free as in free beer" has been used by the FSF and free software proponents to help describe the sense in which the word "free" is being used in the name "free software": you gain certain freedoms with free software, freedoms you don't get under the default status of copyright. Specifically, you gain the rights to run, inspect, share, and modify the program any time, with anyone, for any reason.

The reference is meant to steer people away from solely thinking about the word "free" as a reference to price. As I understand it, this phrase and this not used outside the US because most other countries use some language where the concepts of liberty and price are not tied together with the same word.

(2) Free speech allows individuals to create proprietary works.

I'm not sure I'd say it is free speech which allows one to license a copyrighted work under a proprietary license. That strikes me as a power copyright law grants us. But, in any event, free speech has limits. Free speech is not absolute and one cannot have all possible freedoms because some freedoms conflict.

(3) GNU-GPL does not allow proprietary works.

Correct -- either the work licensed under the GNU GPL (no hyphen) comes with "complete corresponding source code" or "a written offer, valid for at least three years, to give any third party, for a charge no more than your cost of physically performing source distribution, a complete machine-readable copy of the corresponding source code, to be distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium customarily used for software interchange" (from section 3b of the GNU GPL). Copies of programs ostensibly licensed under the GPL which have neither of these are either improperly licensed or incomplete copies of the program; in either case, one cannot redistribute them further because one can't fulfill the conditions of the license. Distributed derivatives of GNU GPL-covered works must be licensed under the GNU GPL.

therefore

(4) GNU-GPL is not free as in free speech.

The GNU GPL disallows the power to take away someone's software freedom (power being choices one makes which chiefly affect someone else, freedom being choices one makes which chiefly affect oneself). One is denied the power to license derivatives under a proprietary license for good reason: the GNU GPL was written to serve the GNU project whose goal is to provide users with a free software OS. Spreading software freedom to as many users as possible is more effective when these freedoms are preserved in derivatives.

Overall, I'm not quite sure why the phrase irks some so much. I don't treat it as policy, but a cute way to help guide someone's thinking away from money and on to liberties.




Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page