Development of Creative Commons licenses

[Rob Myers <robmyers AT mac.com>]

On Wednesday, February 02, 2005, at 03:01PM, Greg London 
<email AT greglondon.com> wrote: 

>free speech includes writing a book that dissents against the government,

Yup. And copyleft covers forking. Freedom of speech doesn't cover staging a 
coup, though.

>holding it all rights reserved, and defending it fiercely against any
>attempts to infringe on that content. 

Nope. That's copyright. Copyright is not free speech.

>Even if the infringer claims they
>are simply making it part of the ongoing conversation.

This is the heart of my argument. "Freedom of speech" does not cover the 
business model of "piracy". Why should it cover the business model of 
proprietarising Free code?

>That definition only works in the "All copyright is evil" cult, because
>ANY restriction must inherently be evil. 

Such as the restriction that one cannot make a proprietary work?

>If you insist on calling "All Rights Reserved" a form of Censorship,
>then I'll stop wasting my time discussing this with folks who
>live in fantasy land.

I'm not calling "all rights reserved" a form of censorship. We were/are 
discussing making BSD code proprietary. This is an act which prevents the new 
code being published. That goes beyond publishing something "all rights 
reserved" because it isn't -erm- allowing it to be published.

>Copyleft is about preventing individual ownership
>to protect the community as a whole.

A community consists of individuals. If freedom is conceived of as 
unconstrained action, there are various "freedoms" that must be removed from 
individuals to ensure the freedom of individuals.

- Rob.