Development of Creative Commons licenses

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

> My understanding was that people with different
> points of view and beliefs were working on the
> Creative Commons together.  That such people were
> working together because they share some common ground.
>
> Perhaps I was mistaken though.  Perhaps the
> Creative Commons is something very different
> from what believed it to be.

Well, the licenses are certainly not what you
thought they were. You didn't seem to think
that ShareAlike was copyleft, but it is.
You thought a collective work was the same as
a derivative, and it isn't. And while you invoke
GPL and LGPL a couple of times as ideal examples,
you ignore the fact that they don't propagate
their license through collective works as you
seem to think Creative Commons should.

As for what CC is, it's a lot of things to a lot
of people. People who use All Rights Reserved,
might release their work under CC-NC-ND to give
away free samples, but keep the rest of the rights
exclusively to themselves. Others might use CC-BY
to give almost all their rights to a work away.
ANd others will use a CC-SA to protect a gift
economy project they want to contribute to.

But you waltzed in here with completely confused
ideas of what aggregate and derived works are,
a mixed up concept of whether LGPL or GPL is
more restrictive than the other, the idea that
CC-ShareAlike is -not-copyleft- and does not propagate,
and that you aren't interested in gift economy
experiments...

then you announce that copyright law is immoral.

If you were truly interested in working with
people with different points of view and beliefs,
as you say above, then someone should inform you
that the most popular CC license in use is
NonCommercial and NonCommercial-ShareAlike,
both of which are  basically one step up from
All Rights Reserved.

You know, ARR? That license you declared immoral?

So, you started off by saying you didn't want to
talk philosophy, but only after you declared
most CC license users immoral.

And you made your announcement of copyright law
being immoral while stating things that made it
fairly clear you don't understand some basic
concepts of copyright law or CC licenses.

Which makes me wonder how you came to the proper
conclusion given numerous faulty premises...

And having pointed out that your view contradicts
the most commonly used CC licenses, and that it
contradicts the CC idea of "a spectrum of rights"
and a spectrum of licenses, having pointed out
that your "one moral license" doesn't really fit,
you complain that I'm not "working together"
with "different beliefs" from "common ground".

How are you working together with the different beliefs
over on the All Rights Reserved side fo things
with your statements? CC-NC-ND? CC-NC-SA? CC-ND?
They certainly aren't licenses of "liberty" that
seems to be your moral high ground.

If you want to use CC-SA, go for it. But don't
insult half the "spectrum of rights" and not expect
anyone to respond.

Greg