zotz at 100jamz.com
Wed Dec 14 14:03:49 EST 2011
On Wednesday 14 December 2011 12:41:18 Anthony wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 14, 2011 at 10:27 AM, drew Roberts <zotz at 100jamz.com> wrote:
> > On Tuesday 13 December 2011 17:10:16 cc at phizz.demon.co.uk wrote:
> >> Many people use the NC license and are more willing to supply
> >> image to initiatives like the Encyclopedia of Life than to wikispecies
> >> for example.
> > Many people are fine with non-Free Software. That does not mean they walk
> > hand in hand with those who are concerned with Free Software.
> Well, that's what the FSF is for. It's not what CC is for.
I was trying to give an analogy. I will restate the above in CC terms.
Many people are fine with non-Free culture. That does not mean they walk hand
in hand with those who are concerned with Free culture.
Putting them all under the same umbrella leads to more disharmony under the
umbrella than is necessary.
> The problems with the NC licenses go far beyond that. They muddy the
> waters as to what is permitted. In fact, the way they are implemented
> *confuses* authors as to what they are permitting.
I agree that NC is broken even if I thought it should be a part of CC. I don't
agree that it ever should have been a part though.
Nor should ND be a part.
That's my take. Not sure we can fix that in a nice manner these days but since
we are talking about it.
More information about the cc-community