Development of Creative Commons licenses

[j lipszyc <jl AT creativecommons.pl>]

Jamie Jensen wrote:

> Actually, the GPL is only secondarily a social contract for hackers,
> if it is one at all.  Stallman rejects the Sampling license because he
> believes that prohibiting noncommercial verbatim copying is unethical.

...and French courts in recent ruling about p2p networks seem to back 
him in this idea.

In the same time RMS thinks, that prohibiting making derivative works is 
OK. And that is something hard to understand.

This discussion in fact is about "what freedom is for me". Is it freedom 
of an author, or rather a user of creative work? Or maybe - a freedom of 
culture? If it's authors freedom we should go for as many multiple 
licenses as possible. If it's users freedom we should go for one 
standard BSD-like license. If it's free ciulture, we should scrap all 
licenses except two SA licenses (with NC-SA left only for tactical reasons).

So: what freedom means for you? Is it a freedom 5to choose from as many 
licenses as possible? Or is it free culture where you can mix all works 
freely because all they are covered under one (or two, but compatible) 
license? Is it this kind of freedom which makes people more equal, 
because nobody needs a lawyer and/or money to access culture?

What freedom means for you?

greetings
Jaroslaw Lipszyc