Development of Creative Commons licenses

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

> Mike Linksvayer wrote:
>> > (Is it really necessary for works to go into the Public Domain to
>> > be considered "free"?).
>
>>  Let's not talk about that.
>
> Oooh. "Witness the oppression inherent in the system!" ;-D
>
> Seriously though, why not?  It doesn't seem all that controversial to me.

Well, it is controversial to *some*, not me, mind you, but some.
Richard Stallman came out and denounced all CC licenses because
only some of them were free, and he claims that since he didn't
want a partial endorsement to be confused with a full endorsement,
he decided to err on the side of not endorsing anything at all.

Some consider Public Domain to be truly free.
Others think it is TOO free, since it allows proprietary forks,
and instead, they argue that only Copyleft licenses are really Free,
because it not only guarantees the freedom of that work, but
the freedom of derivatives fo that work.

Given the zeal with which some subscribe to their particular
version of "Free", others sometimes choose to avoid the whole
conversation.

In the VIBGYOR scale, I say anything that is Green (copyleft),
or to the left of that, is Free. But that's just me.
Your results may vary.

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