Development of Creative Commons licenses

["Charles Iliya Krempeaux" <supercanadian AT gmail.com>]

Hello Greg,

OK fine... I'll argue this on the list...

(But please let's keep this civil and not let it degenerate into a flame war.)

But first let me say that I'm sorry if I offended you.

By talking about the stuff about "liberty" I was only trying to explain my point-of-view (when Peter Brink asked me why I wanted a stronger copyleft lcense).  And not to preach.  Or try to change anyone's mind.

Also, as you read my response, please keep in mind that I am NOT trying to be rude with any of my responses.  I know e-mail message usually seems rude.  And I am quite blunt, so my e-mails often seem more so.  I am NOT trying to project any such overtone though.

On 8/29/06, Greg London <email AT greglondon.com> wrote:

> 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.

I actually made a mistake there.  When I read it, I saw "CC-BY".  (Even though it actually said "CC-SA".)  That was my mistake.  And I apologize.

I do not believe that "CC-BY" is copyleft.

But you are correct, "CC-SA" is copyleft.

You thought a collective work was the same as
a derivative, and it isn't.

As you said, not according to the law.  But (to be blunt)... so what?!  So what if the law defines it (or redefined it) that way

When I speak I use the definition of words (like "derivative" and "collective work") that are in my head.  This definition is usually similar to the definition of my friends, colleagues, co-workers, and others I associate with.  I learn definitions through various means from those I do or have associated with and through materials I can learn from.

We have things like dictionaries to help people who do not associate with each other communicate with each other by keeping people's definitions of the same words similar.

If the law said "2 plus 2 makes 5", I'd still think "2 plus 2 makes 4".

To me, it seems obvious all "collective works" are "derivatives" based on how I've learnt "collective works" and "derivatives" to be defined.

Now, having said that, when writing something like a license, I can see that one is compelled to use the language and definitions as given in the law.

But that wasn't the point.  This whole thread started off with me trying to understand how the Creative Commons Copyleft license spreads.  And to do that I needed to ask questions about "derivatives"

(Which was already addressed long ago in this thread.)

And while you invoke
GPL and LGPL a couple of times as ideal examples,

Would you please point out where I called them "ideal"?  I never said any such thing.

(If you could, please just copy-and-paste what I wrote if you're going to try and quote me.)
 

you ignore the fact that they don't propagate
their license through collective works as you
seem to think Creative Commons should.

Again, would you point out where I did this?  (Just copy-and-paste the passages of text where I do this.)

And again remember, I was talking about (what I'll call) common English definitions of words and phrases such as "derivative" and "collective works".
 

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,

I did have ignorance of what the law defines as a "derived" work and an "aggregate" work.

And I was ignorant to believe that what I believe to be common English definitions of the words would match how the law defines them.  (You've made it clear that they don't have the same definitions.  Perhaps it would be more accurate to call common English word "aggregate" and the legalese work "aggregate" homonyms.)

I was mistaken.  (And thank you for pointing out how different legalese is from common English.)

a mixed up concept of whether LGPL or GPL is
more restrictive than the other,

I think that's a matter of perspective.

From my point of view the GPL is closer to liberty than the LGPL.

the idea that
CC-ShareAlike is -not-copyleft- and does not propagate,

Again, as I mentioned before, I made a mistake.  When I read the message, I saw "CC-BY".  (When it actually said "CC-SA".)

It's "CC-BY" that I believe is not copyleft.
 

and that you aren't interested in gift economy
experiments...

I'm not.  Are you trying to assert that I am being untruthful about what I am thinking?

 

then you announce that copyright law is immoral.

No I didn't announce it.  Someone asked me why I would want stronger copyleft.  And I replied by explaining my point-of-view.

Specifically, Peter Brink asked it here...

https://lists.ibiblio.org/sympa/arc/cc-licenses/2006-August/003979.html

... and I responded explaining my point-of-view.
 

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.

Yes, I'm aware of that.  I've seen reports about such things.

But I choose to stick to copyleft.  And (given the world we live in) use copyleft licenses.

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.

 
Actually, I started out asking questions about the CC BY-SA license.  Here's my original message...

https://lists.ibiblio.org/sympa/arc/cc-licenses/2006-August/003975.html

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,

I never said there was "one moral license".

I actually see copyleft as a compromise.

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.

I am trying to work together by trying to contribute to the copyleft part of things.  I was under the impression that that was our common 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.

I'm sorry if I offened you.  I wasn't trying to.  As I mentioned I was talking about the "liberty" stuff and "morality" stuff because Peter Brink asked why I would want stronger copyleft here...

https://lists.ibiblio.org/sympa/arc/cc-licenses/2006-August/003979.html

... and I responded explaining my point-of-view (about my beliefs about "liberty" and "morality").

See ya

-- 
    Charles Iliya Krempeaux, B.Sc.

    charles @ reptile.ca
    supercanadian @ 
gmail.com

    developer weblog: 
http://ChangeLog.ca/
___________________________________________________________________________
 Make Television                                http://maketelevision.com/