Development of Creative Commons licenses

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

On Wednesday 02 February 2005 01:55 am, J.B. Nicholson-Owens wrote:
> Mike Linksvayer wrote:
> > Open Source does not only refer to a type of development methodology.
> >
> > See http://opensource.org/docs/definition.php
>
> The only time the definition of "open source" refers to anything being
> "free" is when they're referring to price (section 1 of the definition
> refers to "Free Redistribution" which prohibits giving away or selling
> source code as a component of an aggregate software distribution).
>
> The open source movement's philosophy is a development methodology aimed
> chiefly at businesses according to what's on their front page: (emphasis
> theirs -- bold represented as caps)
>
> > The BASIC IDEA BEHIND OPEN SOURCE is very simple: When programmers
> > can read, redistribute, and modify the source code for a piece of
> > software, the software evolves. People improve it, people adapt it,
> > people fix bugs. And this can happen at a speed that, if one is used
> > to the slow pace of conventional software development, seems
> > astonishing.
> >
> > We in the open source community have learned that this rapid
> > evolutionary process produces better software than the traditional
> > closed model, in which only a very few programmers can see the source
> > and everybody else must blindly use an opaque block of bits.
> >
> > Open Source Initiative exists to make this case to the commercial
> > world.
>
> Mike Linksvayer wrote:
> > IMO development methodology is entirely secondary to freedoms granted
> > by open source software [...]
>
> I don't think that's correct.  For the open source movement, software
> freedom is not a proper frame for the issues they raise.  That movement
> talks about rapidly improving programs to produce programs with fewer
> bugs and better features.
>
> Freedom talk is something the OSI calls "ideological tub-thumping"
> in their FAQ.  I take that to mean that freedom talk is most definately
> discouraged in the open source movement because it gets in the way of
> making their pitch on "solid pragmatic grounds" to their primary
> audience: businesses.

I haven't read their FAQ (at least not that I remember) but I have been in 
this game for a good while now - somewhere in the mid 90s. (I am more a Free 
Software person than an Open Source person for those who need to classify.) 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.

Any one else have such memories?

all the best,

drew