Development of Creative Commons licenses

[Gottfried Hofmann <toddd AT mypse.goracer.de>]

> Anything that "doesn't allow" something is not free as in freedom.
> See, the difference is "free speech" is free as in a commons.
> Free speech allows you to create a proprietary work, all rights reserved,
> that dissents against the community or government or whatever,
> to hold it proprietary, and to sell copies.

Well, in a society you're only free as long as you don't infringe other 
peoples freedom. Your freedom ends as your fist hits your opponent's face.
If someone locks you away your freedom is also drastically reduced 
(while you can say that he has the freedom to lock you away because 
otherwise he is not free). But of course your're not free as long as 
your freedom can be jeopardised (by other peoples "freedom").

It's quiet the same with the GPL: You mustn't take away other peoples 
freedom to code by making GPLed software proprietary.

I guess lots of people have argued about the paradoxon that free 
software is free due to its restrictions. They did so in the past and 
will do so in the future...