[cc-licenses] Creative Commons & Copyleft question?
Charles Iliya Krempeaux
supercanadian at gmail.com
Wed Aug 30 00:53:20 EDT 2006
OK fine... I'll argue this on the list...
(But please let's keep this civil and not let it degenerate into a flame
But first let me say that I'm sorry if I offended you.
By talking about the stuff about "liberty" I was only trying to explain my
point-of-view (when Peter Brink asked me why I wanted a stronger copyleft
lcense). And not to preach. Or try to change anyone's mind.
Also, as you read my response, please keep in mind that I am NOT trying to
be rude with any of my responses. I know e-mail message usually seems
rude. And I am quite blunt, so my e-mails often seem more so. I am NOT
trying to project any such overtone though.
On 8/29/06, Greg London <email at greglondon.com> wrote:
> > My understanding was that people with different
> > points of view and beliefs were working on the
> > Creative Commons together. That such people were
> > working together because they share some common ground.
> > Perhaps I was mistaken though. Perhaps the
> > Creative Commons is something very different
> > from what believed it to be.
> Well, the licenses are certainly not what you
> thought they were. You didn't seem to think
> that ShareAlike was copyleft, but it is.
I actually made a mistake there. When I read it, I saw "CC-BY". (Even
though it actually said "CC-SA".) That was my mistake. And I apologize.
I do not believe that "CC-BY" is copyleft.
But you are correct, "CC-SA" is copyleft.
You thought a collective work was the same as
> a derivative, and it isn't.
As you said, not according to the law. But (to be blunt)... so what?! So
what if the law defines it (or redefined it) that way
When I speak I use the definition of words (like "derivative" and
"collective work") that are in my head. This definition is usually similar
to the definition of my friends, colleagues, co-workers, and others I
associate with. I learn definitions through various means from those I do
or have associated with and through materials I can learn from.
We have things like dictionaries to help people who do not associate with
each other communicate with each other by keeping people's definitions of
the same words similar.
If the law said "2 plus 2 makes 5", I'd still think "2 plus 2 makes 4".
To me, it seems obvious all "collective works" are "derivatives" based on
how I've learnt "collective works" and "derivatives" to be defined.
Now, having said that, when writing something like a license, I can see that
one is compelled to use the language and definitions as given in the law.
But that wasn't the point. This whole thread started off with me trying to
understand how the Creative Commons Copyleft license spreads. And to do
that I needed to ask questions about "derivatives"
(Which was already addressed long ago in this thread.)
And while you invoke
> GPL and LGPL a couple of times as ideal examples,
Would you please point out where I called them "ideal"? I never said any
(If you could, please just copy-and-paste what I wrote if you're going to
try and quote me.)
you ignore the fact that they don't propagate
> their license through collective works as you
> seem to think Creative Commons should.
Again, would you point out where I did this? (Just copy-and-paste the
passages of text where I do this.)
And again remember, I was talking about (what I'll call) common English
definitions of words and phrases such as "derivative" and "collective
As for what CC is, it's a lot of things to a lot
> of people. People who use All Rights Reserved,
> might release their work under CC-NC-ND to give
> away free samples, but keep the rest of the rights
> exclusively to themselves. Others might use CC-BY
> to give almost all their rights to a work away.
> ANd others will use a CC-SA to protect a gift
> economy project they want to contribute to.
> But you waltzed in here with completely confused
> ideas of what aggregate and derived works are,
I did have ignorance of what the law defines as a "derived" work and an
And I was ignorant to believe that what I believe to be common English
definitions of the words would match how the law defines them. (You've made
it clear that they don't have the same definitions. Perhaps it would be
more accurate to call common English word "aggregate" and the legalese work
I was mistaken. (And thank you for pointing out how different legalese is
from common English.)
a mixed up concept of whether LGPL or GPL is
> more restrictive than the other,
I think that's a matter of perspective.
>From my point of view the GPL is closer to liberty than the LGPL.
the idea that
> CC-ShareAlike is -not-copyleft- and does not propagate,
Again, as I mentioned before, I made a mistake. When I read the message, I
saw "CC-BY". (When it actually said "CC-SA".)
It's "CC-BY" that I believe is not copyleft.
and that you aren't interested in gift economy
I'm not. Are you trying to assert that I am being untruthful about what I
then you announce that copyright law is immoral.
No I didn't announce it. Someone asked me why I would want stronger
copyleft. And I replied by explaining my point-of-view.
Specifically, Peter Brink asked it here...
... and I responded explaining my point-of-view.
If you were truly interested in working with
> people with different points of view and beliefs,
> as you say above, then someone should inform you
> that the most popular CC license in use is
> NonCommercial and NonCommercial-ShareAlike,
> both of which are basically one step up from
> All Rights Reserved.
Yes, I'm aware of that. I've seen reports about such things.
But I choose to stick to copyleft. And (given the world we live in) use
You know, ARR? That license you declared immoral?
> So, you started off by saying you didn't want to
> talk philosophy, but only after you declared
> most CC license users immoral.
Actually, I started out asking questions about the CC BY-SA license. Here's
my original message...
And you made your announcement of copyright law
> being immoral while stating things that made it
> fairly clear you don't understand some basic
> concepts of copyright law or CC licenses.
> Which makes me wonder how you came to the proper
> conclusion given numerous faulty premises...
> And having pointed out that your view contradicts
> the most commonly used CC licenses, and that it
> contradicts the CC idea of "a spectrum of rights"
> and a spectrum of licenses, having pointed out
> that your "one moral license" doesn't really fit,
I never said there was "one moral license".
I actually see copyleft as a compromise.
you complain that I'm not "working together"
> with "different beliefs" from "common ground".
> How are you working together with the different beliefs
> over on the All Rights Reserved side fo things
> with your statements? CC-NC-ND? CC-NC-SA? CC-ND?
> They certainly aren't licenses of "liberty" that
> seems to be your moral high ground.
I am trying to work together by trying to contribute to the copyleft part of
things. I was under the impression that that was our common ground.
If you want to use CC-SA, go for it. But don't
> insult half the "spectrum of rights" and not expect
> anyone to respond.
I'm sorry if I offened you. I wasn't trying to. As I mentioned I was
talking about the "liberty" stuff and "morality" stuff because Peter Brink
asked why I would want stronger copyleft here...
... and I responded explaining my point-of-view (about my beliefs about
"liberty" and "morality").
Charles Iliya Krempeaux, B.Sc.
charles @ reptile.ca
supercanadian @ gmail.com
developer weblog: http://ChangeLog.ca/
Make Television http://maketelevision.com/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the cc-licenses