Development of Creative Commons licenses

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

On Wednesday 02 February 2005 11:26 am, Greg London wrote:
> drew Roberts said:
> > Greg London wrote:
> >> Draw the set of copyleft ONLY, and there is no option to take a public
> >> domain work and make it proprietary. that is OUTSIDE of copyleft.
> >> It is something you CANNOT DO in copyleft. You need copyright law to do
> >> it.
> >
> > There is no copyleft law, copyleft is copyright applied in a certain way.
> > All rights reserved is copyright lay applied in a certain way. Right?
>
> I never said there was copyleft law. don't know where that came from.
> What I said is that copyleft is a SUBSET of copyright.
> You say copyleft is copyright applied in a certain way.
> I say copyleft is a subset of copyright.

Yes, copyleft is a subset of copyright, BSD is a subset of copyright, All 
Rights Reserved is a subset of copyright. I don't think I need to disagree 
with that now. It's late and I may not be clearheaded, so I won't agree 
outright now.
>
> There are many things you can do in Free Speech and Copyright
> that you cannot do under copyleft alone.

I think you are makeing the case BSD == copyright. Perhaps not. The problem 
is 
that you are sayint copyleft alone. I am making the point that in the real 
world, we are not limited to copyleft alone.
>
> >> The individual cannot make a proprietary fork in a world where only
> >> copyleft exists.

Again, only copyleft does not exits.
> >
> > We don't live in that world. Should we or shouldn't we is another
> > discussion, but we don't.
>
> But the point is simply that copyleft by itself does not allow
> all the things that are possible under copyright. It is a subset of
> copyright.

So?
>
> And if Free Speech is a superset of copyright and copyright is a superset
> of copyleft, then that means that Copyleft is a sub-sub-set of free speech.
>
> Which simply means that "free as in free speech" is
> a bad metaphor for copyleft.

I thin I saw someone else make this point in another post. Free as in speech 
is not meant to be a metaphor AFAICT. It is meant to clue the reader in to 
the fact that free does not refer to cost. That's all. I have seen people say 
libre not gratis. Other's say free as in market, not as in cost. It is just 
meant to make people think of freedom and not cost.
>
> >> Copyleft is all about taking works created by individuals,
> >> and adding it to the community pool of works,
> >> and making sure no one can take them OUT of the community pool.
> >
> > In the world in which we live. I can put a work in the copyleft pool. I
> > can taked the same work and put it in the "proprietary" pool. I can also
> > put a derivative work in the "proprietary" pool, even if I don't put it
> > in the copyleft pool. I can also sell the rights to make derivative works
> > of the copyleft work and keep them "proprietary"... Right?
>
> Yeah. But in the copyright world, I can take someone elses work that is
> BSD and create a derived work and hold it completely proprietary.
>
> That simply isn't allowed under copyleft. You need copyright to do that.

So? All Rights Reserved is the main form of copyright used in the world, and 
in the copyright world, you can do even less with that than with the "subset" 
of copyright called copyleft.
>
> Copyleft is a subset of copyright. There are things that you cannot do
> under a copyleft system, things that have to occur under a copyright system
> to be allowed. And Free Speech includes copyright. So copyleft is far
> more restrictive than Free Speech. So free speech is a bad metaphor.

Again, I don't think it is meant to be a metaphor, just a clue to think 
freedom and not cost.
>
> >> That isn't about individual freedom being protected against
> >> abuse by the community or state. That's about creating and
> >> protecting a community and protecting against individuals
> >> who could otherwise create proprietary forks.
> >>
> >> Simple argument,
> >> copyleft is a subset of all that is copyright.
> >> If only copyleft existed, you would not have the
> >> same individual freedoms that you do now with copyright
> >> as a superset. You would not be able to create a proprietary
> >> work in a world where only copyleft existed.

But again, that world does not exist. I don't want to release my work 
(programs) under BSD. So that leaves me with All Rights Reserved or GPL. 
Which choice on my part will give you the most freedom?

> >
> > Again, we don't live in that world.
>
> SO WHAT? The point is that even in todays world, there are things
> that you can only do outside of copyleft. Copyleft is far more restrictive
> than copyright or free speech. That is true now, in the real world.

Certainly. Copyright, applied as it most often is, is far more restrictive 
than copyleft. Correct?
>
> So equating copyleft with free speech is a bad metaphor.

Again, not a metaphor AFAICT.
>
> Copyleft isn't about individual freedom the way free speech is about
> individual freedom. Copyleft is about community building and protecting
> anything that is added to the community from ever being taken private.
>
> >> Copyleft is about preventing individual ownership
> >> to protect the community as a whole.

Not necessarily, it could be about preventing some individuals from 
restricting the freedoms of other individuals.

I hate to bring this thought up, but under our current laws, we are not free 
to sell ourselves as slaves. Are we really free if we can't make the choice 
to not be free?

Under copyright, are we really free if others can take our freedoms?
> >
> > In the world in which we live, copyleft does not prevent individual
> > ownership. If I GPL a program I wrote, I still own the copyrights to it,
> > I have just given a license to use the work I own under certain
> > conditions. I am preventing an individual from taking MY WORK and makeing
> > a derivative work which he then locks me out of. If copyleft did not
> > exist and I released the same work under the standard copyright all
> > rights reserved, those same restrictions would exist for that individual.
> > In the world in which we live, that individual can pay me in either
> > situation (copyleft or all rights reserved0 and I can allow him to make
> > that derivative work. Right?
> >
all the best,

drew