Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

cc-licenses - Re: Simple question about CC license

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: Simple question about CC license
  • Date: Wed, 02 Feb 2005 16:48:54 -0600

drew Roberts wrote:
I remember when the idea for using the term Open Source was first
bandied about publically. Seems to me one of the thoughts put forward
was that Open Source was in effect just a marketing ploy for Free
Software aimed at getting it adopted for other reasons by those put
off by the talk of freedom.

That is exactly how the OSI advertises their activity today -- they say "The Open Source Initiative is a marketing program for free software." in their FAQ.

But the OSI gives their imprimatur to some licenses that the Free Software Foundation (the older organization that defines "free software" and decides which licenses are free software licenses) doesn't. So, the OSI is not merely marketing free software. The OSI is pursuing a different philosophy which has some practical differences with software freedom.

For instance, versions 1.x of the Apple Public Source License (APSL) required licensees to notify a central authority of changes to deployed APSL-covered programs. That central authority was Apple.

The OSI gave the early APSL their stamp of approval, making it an OSI-approved license. The FSF decried the lack of privacy inherent in notifying a central authority of "deployed" changes because a fundamental part of software freedom is the freedom "to make modifications and use them privately in your own work or play, without even mentioning that they exist" (from the definition of free software). This justified withholding free software status from the latest of the 1.x APSLs.

Apple wanted the APSL to be a free software license. So they made changes and produced the APSL v2 which does not have the problems which prevented the APSL from being a bona fide free software license. As a result of Apple's diligence in pursuing software freedom, some parts of MacOS X are free software. You can get a free software OS made from these parts and other free software if you get GNU/Darwin. Some other parts of MacOS X (including Quartz, the PDF display software, and most QuickTime codecs as well as Apple's QuickTime implementation) are proprietary software. Thus, MacOS X is not a free software OS.

Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/apsl.html for more explanation on this.




Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page