Development of Creative Commons licenses

["White, Phil" <Phil.White AT rjah.nhs.uk>]

I am _SO_ sorry for this thread - I really had not intended it to reach
this length.

Due to the number of issues that have been raised over the last few
days, I will separate them with a row of octothorpes. Quotes from past
posts will be preceded by their authors initials.

######################################################################

1) My overly sensitive nature!
Post a comment such as
GL: You soak up all the contributions from people, have them sign
copyright
GL: over to you, and then when they've made the work even better, you
have
GL: the sole right to sell it to MajorCorp and leave your
contributors...
and you have the opportunity to be misunderstood over the meaning of the
word 'you'. Does that refer to Me, Us, or Them? My complaint about such
talk received the following response:
GL: "methinks he doth protest too much"
(for anyone unfamiliar, the quote is paraphrased from Hamlet Act3 Scene
2, where Queen Gertrude makes comment about the protestations made by an
actor in a play - who represents the queen herself. It is used to
denounce a hypocrite.)
To be fair to Greg, he is right - None of his comments specifically say
that he thinks I am, or will go bad, or misuse the efforts of any
contributors. However, it was repeated so often and so insistently that
the assertion was made by implication, intentional or not. I don't like
the veiled accusation of being a hypocrite, and I don't like being
misinterpreted. There are frequent misquotes of my ideas and concepts,
leading to unnecessary comments. 

TH: I'm sorry -- I was a little miffed at Phil for... a breach of
etiquette.

No offence was intended. I stated my motive: I was anxious to avoid any
degradation of the argument into a flamewar or personal slanging match.
We were getting off topic, and I was getting irritable.

Anyway, I have had a weekend off, and am a little less temperamental!

######################################################################

2) Freedom - definition of:
I'm not sure, but I think this is off-thread (at least the original
one).
The first time I find the word 'free', or any variant, used is:

GL: If you want,... but the work remains free. (060621:0911)

Problem 1: 
I had not used the term by then. My comments up to that point had
already indicated I could NOT make do with a 'Free/Libre' license.
Therefore comments about whether my intentions/methods/results are
'Free/Libre' or not are irrelevant - I know that they are not
'Free/Libre', and cannot be. I kid not myself, you, nor anyone else.
Neither have I claimed OpenSource (even less OpenSource than
Free/Libre!), FLOSS, or any other 'Standard'. This is off-thread, and
not needed as I am sure EVERYONE here agrees that this does not meet the
criteria and never will. Are we able to drop this one issue? If not,
would the use of an OpenSource license like this :
http://www.opensource.org/licenses/rpl.php
be acceptable?

Problem 2:
PW: the problem revolves around that definition of 'freedom', and making
PW: sure the results remain shared. (060621:1015)
GL: don't kid yourself that CC-ND ... is anything resembling Free or
Sharing
  : (060621:2209)
GL: you seem to have attempted to redefine what "freedom" and "sharing"
GL: mean (060622:1831)
GL: ... Phil wants to redefine them to mean something else.
(060624:2308)

Erm - that is incorrect. My first comment should be read as an attempt
to define the problem, not about the definition of freedom, whilst
acknowledging the fact that there are several definitions out there
(hence the small 'freedom'). Being my usual pedantic self, 'freedom' is
a standard English word, in the standard English dictionary. If I need
it to represent anything else, I have to capitalise it to distinguish it
from the common meaning. 'Freedom' has not (in this thread) been
defined. I assumed it was not necessary. I might have been wrong. To
prevent any further misunderstanding or argument;
        Freedom 0: Use / Study for any purpose
        Freedom 1: Copy / Share for any purpose
        Freedom 2: Change / Modify
        Freedom 3: Distribute Derivatives
        Freedom (other): ANYTHING ELSE AT ALL
As an aside, I would like a reference to the accepted GNU/FSF definition
of 'Share'. I have not been able to find one.

######################################################################

3) Freedom, general & copyleft vs. proprietary assignment:
Totally off-thread. Is this helpful at all? The CC-BY-SA is not Free,
(due to the requirement to remove attribution from derivatives) so the
debate is, surely, totally hypothetical. Unless we want to go back to my
way of looking at degrees of freedom...

TH: he also asserted that the case for free-copyleft versus proprietory
TH: -assignment was not proven (060623:1746)

Incorrect. I have, however, said that there are times when other
licenses maybe more appropriate. I also said that I have made statements
as to why I thought my scheme would work whereas the Free system would
not - I maintained that neither TH nor myself could prove our own
respective assertion in this particular context of application.

######################################################################

4) intentions, motivations, :

The intention of the wiki web-site: To maintain a single,
self-maintained entity. What is important is to protect the integrity of
the data held on the site. Offer as many freedoms as possible, but that
is not the main motivation. Take the ego of the hostmaster out of the
equation as much as is possible. Forking can be good - but equally can
be bad. In truth, "United we stand, divided we fall". Is a fork just
disruptive, or destructive? Fork in public - no worries. Fork in private
- No! You are taking a specialist resource, and contributing nothing to
its maintenance or upkeep.
My other comment, made privately, was

"The authors submit the work, so they should get the rights, first and
foremost - even is that restricts the Freedom of the reader". 

This, amongst other things, recognizes one major right: that a work may
not be modified without consent. With no centralized wiki, an author has
no knowledge of modification. They must therefore consent beforehand to
allow, or disallow modification, without knowing what the result will
be. Some authors will. Some, most definitely, will not. I am not saying
one of them is right, the other, wrong. That is their choice and I
respect that. BUT, if I can keep them BOTH happy, then I get twice the
number of contributors.

Yes, tracking modifications is a PITA. Not, however, unwieldly:

GL: And when Charlie wants to fork off of Bob's version, he has to
notify
GL: Bob, Alice, and Phil. (060626:1245)

Incorrect. Charlie modifies the wiki. Bob, Alice & Phil can 'look in' if
they wish to. They don't have to, but Charlie's obligation has been met.

GL: Phil's proposal is to make himself the central authority...
GL: (060626:1017)

Only out of ignorance. Propose a system where THE SITE has central
authority and control, and I'll go with you. 

GL: Phil's proposal is to make sure only Phil can modify his hosted
GL: documents. (060626:1017)

Sorry. Incorrect, again. Never have I made that assertion.

GL: The thing is that Phil may very well be intent on doing what's best
for
GL: the work, even to his own detriment.
<snip>
GL: I am looking at it from a system's point of view. (060623:2308)

This is what I would like to focus upon. 

GL: If, HYPOTHETICALLY, sometime down the road, Phil betrays his
position
GL: of trust and does something to the project that is for his benefit
at
GL: the expense of the work itself, then NO-ONE can step in and save the
GL: work. (060624:1058)

What sort of affidavit would you like?

I have tried explaining this to the best of my ability, and obviously
failed. I apologise for that failure. Perhaps if I take things to the
RIDICULOUS EXTREEM (please note!), I might make the point in a different
way:

Consider - My wife and I decide to have a child. Gestation is long, and
causes all sorts of discomfort - morning sickness, bad moods/tempers,
sore nipples, piles, mild pre-eclampsia, and pain during birth. But,
despite all this, the child is healthy.

Over the years, our child grows, and learns how to survive. And,
thankfully, due to a Bill of Rights, is granted certain freedoms and
privileges in the country of birth. Amongst these, my child can be
confident that:
1) They can choose whatever career they like
2) They will be allowed to have their own family
3) The will be allowed to change their political view at any time
4) Their children will be allowed the same liberties.
Additionally:
1) Corporations will not spy on their activities
2) Scientists will not steal their DNA to clone them
3) The state will not brainwash them
4) My grandchildren will not be stolen and sold as slaves

Are these assumptions right and reasonable? Of course.
But what of the loss of Freedom? Corporations have lost 'Freedom 0': the
freedom to freely study my child. Scientists no longer have 'Freedom 2':
to clone my child. The State has lost 'Freedom 3', and the slave-traders
cannot distribute derivatives of my child as they see fit (Freedom 4).

Absurd!


Best regards,

Phil.