Development of Creative Commons licenses

[drew Roberts <zotz AT 100jamz.com>]

Is it the code that is Free, or the Coders?

On Tuesday 01 February 2005 12:58 pm, Gottfried Hofmann wrote:
> > 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...
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> cc-licenses mailing list
> cc-licenses AT lists.ibiblio.org
> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-licenses