Development of Creative Commons licenses

["Greg London" <email AT greglondon.com>]

Daniel Carrera said:
> Greg London wrote:
>> Declaring FDL non-free because of a license OPTION is
>> losing focus of the big picture.
>
> I disagree. Let's go over what we mean by "license XYZ is a free license".
> There are two things we could mean:
>
> 1) A work under license XYZ *might* be free to use and modify.
> 2) A work under license XYZ *is* free to use and modify.
>
> Debian has chosen the first definition.

You mean debian chose the second definition, I assume.

It would be possible to treat GNU-FDL as a single license
with CC-like options that the author can enable.
Some of those options are "free" and some are non-free.

This license is free:
"GNU-FDL with no Invariant Sections and no front/back cover texts"

THere is no reason to exclude GNU-FDL completely because it
has some options that make it non-free.

That would be like deciding to exclude all CC licenses from being
free because CC has the NonCommercial option which could
be combined with any CC license, and since NC isn't free,
any CC-license has the option to not be free.

You could think of "GNU-FDL-wNISaNFBCT" as similar to the
various alphabet soup licenses that some CC works have.

Some soups are "free" and some are not.

Completely excluding GNU-FDL because of some non-free options
while picking and choosing CC and it's various free options
says to me that someone at Debian has an axe to grind with RMS.