Development of Creative Commons licenses

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

On Sunday 27 November 2005 04:59 pm, Rob Myers wrote:
> On 27 Nov 2005, at 20:55, phyllostachys nuda wrote:
> > Yes you can decide what is ethical and what is unethical. That is
> > at the very core of what it means to be a human being instead of an
> > animal.
>
> The moral content of an action may be dependent on intent or may be
> context-dependent, which will be hard to capture in a license.
>
> > As for 'its not free software if you put restrictions on it'...
> > that is not correct. You are already putting restrictions on the
> > software by using GPL. The whole point of the GPL is to put moral
> > restrictions on use of code via copyright law. It just so happens
> > that that 'moral restriction' is that 'you cant restrict others
> > freedom with this code'. Well, my 'moral restriction' is that 'you
> > cant torture people to death with this code'. What is the difference?
>
> The GPL's restriction is reflexive. The ethical wrong that the GPL
> prevents is hackers being prevented from hacking.
>
> Your restriction is not reflexive. Torture is a subset of the actions
> that can be taken to prevent people hacking, but this is not the most
> interesting thing about it.
>
> > There isnt any philosophical difference.
>
> Yes there is. Your restriction is not reflexive.
>
> > The principle is the same.
>
> No it is not. You are seeking to exert moral pressure on activities
> outside the domain of creativity by withdrawing access to creative
> work. This is not the same as the GPL, which only withdraws access to
> creative work if the ability of others to create is threatened.
>
> > Apply moral standards to code, and use copyright law to do it.
>
> Stallman does phrase his argument in terms of ethics, but only in a
> very specific domain.
>
> > Now, I would really like someone to a ctually put thought into this
> > issue and give a real reply, instead of these idiotic non-rebuttals
> > that I have heard a million times.
>
> You asked a question and have been answered, coherently. If you can
> refute the criticisms of your argument then do so.
>
> > Your logic is crappy and 'blowing off the troll' is not the same
> > thing as making a coherent argument.
>
> No-one has treated you as a troll. But the ethical license idea, and
> you are not the first person to suggest such a license, falls down as
> soon as you ask whether using your work to advance the causes of
> abortion, the death penalty, eminent domain seizure of property, or
> anticapitalist riots, is ethical. Yes, you have answers, but so do
> people on the other side of the political spectrum from you. And they
> will be the opposite answers.
>
> Your license cannot define which of these actions is "ethical" for
> other people, or which actions in general are ethical. In contrast
> the GPL is the product of a philosophy that defines only one thing as
> unethical: preventing hacking. Your license will feature "ethical" as
> a free term. The GPL realises a particular "ethic" through its
> specific clauses.

Either that or there will be a boatload of such licenses as he proposes each 
with their own long list of specifically prohibited activities. I think this 
will actually bring divisivness whereas the GPL has some small possibility of 
getting enemies to work together for their common good. (I never said I was 
not a pie in the sky dreamer at times.)
>
> - Rob.
all the best,

drew
-- 
http://www.archive.org/search.php?query=creator%3A%22drew%20Roberts%22