Development of Creative Commons licenses

[phyllostachys nuda <phnuda AT yahoo.com>]

The only questions I can find are 'who would decide what is ethical' and 'who would use it' and 'its not free' and 'what exactly would be ethical' and 'look at MONGO and Chaco'.

 

The answers:

 

Who decides what is ethical: Anyone can decide a starting set of rules. Others will expand the list in the future in various other licenses. They can steal ideas from human rights law, such as the Geneva Conventions, etc.

 

Who would use it: Everyone can decide for themselves to use it or not, just like when GPL etc first started out. It doesn't matter if a ton of people don't use it.

 

Its not free: Irrelevant. The GPL is not totally 'free', nor are certain versions of Creative Commons. That doesn't make them bad licenses.

 

What exactly would be ethical:

How about this for starters

1. 'this code shall not be used, in whole or in part, in any software or hardware system that is used for torturing prisoners or detainees'.

2. 'this code shall not be used, in whole or in part, in any software or hardware guidance system for any missile or artillery projectile system whose purpose is the delivery of biological, chemical, or nuclear weapons'

Mongo and Chaco prove it won't work: This is only one case study and it is not convincing. We have the word of a single person as to what happened. As a scientist he should understand the desire people have for more sources, primary and secondary, when studying questions of history. Perhaps Chaco is used becaue it is simply better written, in a more modern and portable language, better maintained, and run by people who were not trying to kill it off so they could make a commercial product. Until I see something other than one man's word, I cannot scientifically accept the Mong and Chaco case as proof that the idea won't work.

 

cc-licenses-request AT lists.ibiblio.org wrote:

Send cc-licenses mailing list submissions to
cc-licenses AT lists.ibiblio.org

To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-licenses
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
cc-licenses-request AT lists.ibiblio.org

You can reach the person managing the list at
cc-licenses-owner AT lists.ibiblio.org

When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of cc-licenses digest..."


Today's Topics:

1. Re: Universal Copyleft License [was: Mapping of license
restrictions (CC - GFDL compatibility)] (j lipszyc)
2. Re: Universal Copyleft License [was: Mapping of license
restrictions (CC - GFDL compatibility)] (j lipszyc)
3. unsubscribe (Marco Raaphorst)
4. Re: human rights license (Greg London)
5. Re: cc-licenses Digest, Vol 32, Issue 42 (phyllostachys nuda)
6. Re: cc-licenses Digest, Vol 32, Issue 42 (drew Roberts)
7. Re: Universal Copyleft License [was: Mapping of license
restrictions (CC - GFDL compatibility)] (Terry Hancock)


----------------------------------------------------------------------

Message: 1
Date: Tue, 29 Nov 2005 02:23:17 +0100
From: j lipszyc
Subject: Re: [cc-licenses] Universal Copyleft License [was: Mapping of
license restrictions (CC - GFDL compatibility)]
To: Discussion on the Creative Commons license drafts

Message-ID: <438BAD85.0 AT creativecommons.pl>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed

Terry Hancock wrote:

> Opinions? Am I out of my mind? ;-)

Promising. Nice concept. I would argue, that you cannot have way out
from UCL into any license of your choice because of trust.
But - sometimes i feel that we are all alone in the world. Is there any
way to make sure CC HQ reads this? Mia?
Jaroslaw Lipszyc


------------------------------

Message: 2
Date: Tue, 29 Nov 2005 03:08:08 +0100
From: j lipszyc
Subject: Re: [cc-licenses] Universal Copyleft License [was: Mapping of
license restrictions (CC - GFDL compatibility)]
To: Discussion on the Creative Commons license drafts

Message-ID: <438BB808.5050603 AT creativecommons.pl>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed

Terry Hancock wrote:

> Opinions? Am I out of my mind? ;-)

Promising. Nice concept. I would argue, that you cannot have way out
from UCL into any license of your choice because of trust.
But - sometimes i feel that we are all alone in the world. Is there any
way to make sure CC HQ reads this? Mia?
Jaroslaw Lipszyc



------------------------------

Message: 3
Date: Mon, 28 Nov 2005 21:02:02 +0100
From: Marco Raaphorst
Subject: [cc-licenses] unsubscribe
To: cc-licenses AT lists.ibiblio.org
Message-ID:
<87fc26db0511281202m5f341210s127cb45e67288a28 AT mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"

--

http://marcoraaphorst.nl (Dutch)
http://melodiefabriek.nl (English)
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: https://lists.ibiblio.org/sympa/arc/cc-licenses/attachments/20051128/07e94d52/attachment-0001.htm

------------------------------

Message: 4
Date: Mon, 28 Nov 2005 23:38:48 -0500 (EST)
From: "Greg London"
Subject: Re: [cc-licenses] human rights license
To: "Discussion on the Creative Commons license drafts"

Message-ID: <1957.209.6.166.19.1133239128.squirrel AT www.greglondon.com>
Content-Type: text/plain;charset=iso-8859-1


> Now, I would really like someone to actually put thought into this issue
> and give a real reply, instead of these idiotic non-rebuttals that I
> have heard a million times. Your logic is crappy and 'blowing off the
> troll' is not the same thing as making a coherent argument.

Well, you put some thought into the issue. What use/uses specifically
do you wish to prohibit? A license needs legally binding wording,
not vague references to "unethical uses". That's the first problem.
And you'll have to decide what it is that you want to prevent.

Then, your work will only be compatible with licenses that are
BSD-style licenses, i.e. licenses that are Public Domain in nature,
rather than the more restrictive Copyleft licenses, because copyleft
will not allow your specific ethical restrictions to be added on top
of the original copyleft license.

This means that your work will NEVER, EVER be able to be rolled into
a GNU-GPL or GNU-FDL or CC-SA work. if that isn't a problem, then
continue. If it is a problem, then you'll have to give up your
pursuit of ethical enforcement via a copyright license. Because you
will NEVER, EVER be able to change all the works that are GNU-GPL
unless you write every single author/contributer to a GNU-GPL project
and get their permission to dual license their work under your new
license.

at this point, you've either settled with the fact that your
work will only be compatible with BSD-style licenses, or you've
successfully launched and completed one of the most massive
letter-writing campaigns the world has ever seen and secured
permission from every GNU-GPL contributer (or their heirs) to relicense
their work under your new license.

Now, the last question is this:
Will your "ethical" license prevent some nutjob from making
weapons of mass destruction?

If so, great, nominate yourself for the nobel prize.
If not, then why, exactly did you put everyone through this work?

--
Bounty Hunters: Metaphors for Fair IP laws
http://www.greglondon.com/bountyhunters/


------------------------------

Message: 5
Date: Mon, 28 Nov 2005 21:27:51 -0800 (PST)
From: phyllostachys nuda
Subject: Re: [cc-licenses] cc-licenses Digest, Vol 32, Issue 42
To: cc-licenses AT lists.ibiblio.org
Message-ID: <20051129052751.67707.qmail AT web33712.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"

Sorry, I went overboard, that flaming was not right.

Yes, there would be a list of 'prohibited uses' in this license. Just like the GPL has a gigantic list of things you can and can't do with it. It's just a list. I listed some of the political agreements on ethics in my last message; the Geneva Conventions, the US Constitution, etc, which guarantee everyone certain fundamental rights. It is not impossible nor even improbable for diverse groups of people to agree on specifically defined ethical standards and laws; that's what society is.

Some people think the GPL is not very 'free', because it has these restrictions. Some corporations and organizations ban using any GPL code because they feel it is not 'free enough'. They are afraid of the GPL; they think it will wind up to be 'too restrictive' for them, or open them up to lawsuits, force them to open their code, etc etc etc.

But if everyone had worried about whether the GPL or BSD license would be 'popular' then they would have never been written in the first place. The same can be said of Linux and most other free software. Popularity shouldn't be prejudged too harshly. The license should exist, and be easy to use (best thing about Creative Commons), and it should be up to ordinary people to decide if they want to use it or not.

As for MONGO, I tried to look it up. The last version I could find was from 1998 and had no license at all that I could find, not that I went through all the .tex files looking for one. In the early 1990s apparently it required you to pay for it. I tried to look up Chaco. I can't find anything about its reason for being created. Apparently the license historians have been a little lax.

Now as to the question of how it would fragment because people disagree about various ethical arguments; surely, it would. But what of the dozens of different 'open source' and other free licenses that exist in the world. It's the marketplace of ideas.

But there are some standards that the vast majority of the world agrees on. Things like torturing POWs or slavery. If those things alone were in the license that would be a start.

But why computer software? Becuase of the context. Computer software is written by upper class people who have pretty decent lots in life compared to the vast majority of people. They are in a special social and economic position and perhaps they can use this position to do something about the injustices of the world.

Second, because computer software has been developed and used to a large degree by many forces that support injustice in the world, with nary a whimper from the 'computer community'. This goes back at least to IBM and the Nazis, Apartheid South Africa, the various Nuclear weapons programs, the Vietnam war with its cadres of systems engineers plotting equations of victory while millions died on the ground, to our modern day Great Firewall of China, built with the help of Cisco, which allows the government to murder people for speaking their mind. Computer science has a lot to answer for, and this is a chance to do it.

Third because computer technology, in combination with nanotech, and biotech, has the potential to be massively more destructive to life than nuclear technology could ever be. The next generation of weapons will not be about large explosions. It will be about subtle trickery of the fabric of the ecosystem. It will be about viruses, mind control, surveillance, swarms of tiny 'smart weapons' that perhaps we cannot even see. I am sure some body will say 'the authorities will never create such weapons', but please read some history books about the biological, chemical, and nuclear weapons programs created by Japan, the USSR, Germany, the US, and many other countries. Then I ask you, what exactly has changed since those days? Are we somehow magically evolved to the point where we carefully think through things before we do it, or do we simply do it because 'its there' or 'we are getting payed to' or 'its our job'?

Thank you.






---------------------------------
Yahoo! Music Unlimited - Access over 1 million songs. Try it free.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: https://lists.ibiblio.org/sympa/arc/cc-licenses/attachments/20051128/71d4e129/attachment-0001.htm

------------------------------

Message: 6
Date: Tue, 29 Nov 2005 07:06:54 -0500
From: drew Roberts
Subject: Re: [cc-licenses] cc-licenses Digest, Vol 32, Issue 42
To: Discussion on the Creative Commons license drafts

Message-ID: <200511290706.54895.zotz AT 100jamz.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"

On Tuesday 29 November 2005 12:27 am, phyllostachys nuda wrote:
> Sorry, I went overboard, that flaming was not right.

Correct.

However, you are still exhibiting signs of trolling in that you are not
answering the specific questions put to you in a specific fashion. Rather,
you are restating your position in broad generalities.

I suggest if you want this to continues that you go back and answer some of
the issues put to you specifically.
>
> Yes, there would be a list of 'prohibited uses' in this license. Just
> like the GPL has a gigantic list of things you can and can't do with it.
> It's just a list. I listed some of the political agreements on ethics in my
> last message; the Geneva Conventions, the US Constitution, etc, which
> guarantee everyone certain fundamental rights. It is not impossible nor
> even improbable for diverse groups of people to agree on specifically
> defined ethical standards and laws; that's what society is.
>
> Some people think the GPL is not very 'free', because it has these
> restrictions. Some corporations and organizations ban using any GPL code
> because they feel it is not 'free enough'. They are afraid of the GPL; they
> think it will wind up to be 'too restrictive' for them, or open them up to
> lawsuits, force them to open their code, etc etc etc.
>
> But if everyone had worried about whether the GPL or BSD license would be
> 'popular' then they would have never been written in the first place. The
> same can be said of Linux and most other free software. Popularity
> shouldn't be prejudged too harshly. The license should exist, and be easy
> to use (best thing about Creative Commons), and it should be up to ordinary
> people to decide if they want to use it or not.
>
> As for MONGO, I tried to look it up. The last version I could find was
> from 1998 and had no license at all that I could find, not that I went
> through all the .tex files looking for one. In the early 1990s apparently
> it required you to pay for it. I tried to look up Chaco. I can't find
> anything about its reason for being created. Apparently the license
> historians have been a little lax.
>
> Now as to the question of how it would fragment because people disagree
> about various ethical arguments; surely, it would. But what of the dozens
> of different 'open source' and other free licenses that exist in the world.
> It's the marketplace of ideas.
>
> But there are some standards that the vast majority of the world agrees
> on. Things like torturing POWs or slavery. If those things alone were in
> the license that would be a start.
>
> But why computer software? Becuase of the context. Computer software is
> written by upper class people who have pretty decent lots in life compared
> to the vast majority of people. They are in a special social and economic
> position and perhaps they can use this position to do something about the
> injustices of the world.
>
> Second, because computer software has been developed and used to a large
> degree by many forces that support injustice in the world, with nary a
> whimper from the 'computer community'. This goes back at least to IBM and
> the Nazis, Apartheid South Africa, the various Nuclear weapons programs,
> the Vietnam war with its cadres of systems engineers plotting equations of
> victory while millions died on the ground, to our modern day Great Firewall
> of China, built with the help of Cisco, which allows the government to
> murder people for speaking their mind. Computer science has a lot to answer
> for, and this is a chance to do it.
>
> Third because computer technology, in combination with nanotech, and
> biotech, has the potential to be massively more destructive to life than
> nuclear technology could ever be. The next generation of weapons will not
> be about large explosions. It will be about subtle trickery of the fabric
> of the ecosystem. It will be about viruses, mind control, surveillance,
> swarms of tiny 'smart weapons' that perhaps we cannot even see. I am sure
> some body will say 'the authorities will never create such weapons', but
> please read some history books about the biological, chemical, and nuclear
> weapons programs created by Japan, the USSR, Germany, the US, and many
> other countries. Then I ask you, what exactly has changed since those days?
> Are we somehow magically evolved to the point where we carefully think
> through things before we do it, or do we simply do it because 'its there'
> or 'we are getting payed to' or 'its our job'?
>
> Thank you.

all the best,

drew

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


------------------------------

Message: 7
Date: Tue, 29 Nov 2005 08:13:48 -0600
From: Terry Hancock
Subject: Re: [cc-licenses] Universal Copyleft License [was: Mapping of
license restrictions (CC - GFDL compatibility)]
To: Discussion on the Creative Commons license drafts

Message-ID: <20051129081348.21d20f80 AT samwise.anansi>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII

On Tue, 29 Nov 2005 02:23:17 +0100
j lipszyc wrote:
> Terry Hancock wrote:
> > Opinions? Am I out of my mind? ;-)
>
> Promising. Nice concept. I would argue, that you cannot
> have way out from UCL into any license of your choice
> because of trust.

Sorry? Could you expand on that?

If I license my work under a license that says "You are free
to modify and redistribute this work under the terms of this
license, any later version of this license, or any of the
following licenses" along with a list of "approved"
licenses, then you are explicitly expressing trust in the
approved list of licenses. (ISTM)

--
Terry Hancock (hancock AT AnansiSpaceworks.com)
Anansi Spaceworks http://www.AnansiSpaceworks.com



------------------------------

_______________________________________________
cc-licenses mailing list
cc-licenses AT lists.ibiblio.org
http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-licenses


End of cc-licenses Digest, Vol 32, Issue 44
*******************************************

---

 Yahoo! Music Unlimited - Access over 1 million songs. Try it free.