Development of Creative Commons licenses

["Emerson Clarke" <emerson.clarke AT gmail.com>]

> > I don't think that in principle this makes the software any less free
> > than the GPL.  As i said earlier, the only reason the GPL doesnt claim
> > license fees is becuase traditionally the attribution of such fees
> > would be difficult.  In all other areas the GPL strives to create an
> > ecosystem where free software developers and commercial software
> > developers are separated.
>
> This reflects your misunderstanding of the history, purpose, effect, and
> expectations of the GPL.  As a person who started a business in 1989
> based exclusively on GPL-licensed software, I can state based on
> personal experience that the success of that company was in no way based
> upon the forced separation of free and commercial software developers.

I was only quoting from some sources i read recently, see
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BSD_and_GPL_licensing

The GPL clearly sets out to create distinct sets software in the
world, as opposed to BSD style licenses which simply give things away
for free.  To me, personally, the GPL seems a little confused.  It
seems like it was designed by people who wanted to give their software
away for free, but couldnt quite stomach seeing other people benefit
from it directly.  Hence the non commercial use clause. But the
problem is the non commercial use clause doesnt cover most of the
commercial uses.

I dont believe the GPL necessarily creates any more of a community or
encourages any more contribution than BSD style licenses do.   Atleast
not because of the non commercial clauses.  I dont think non
commercial clauses do anything to contribute to open source.  At the
end of the day it is individual developers who contribute time to free
software, not companies.  And in my own experience BSD style licensed
projects tend to be more pervasive.  Projects like zlib, openssl, and
sqlite have been very succesful becuase of their availability to
commercial users.

I dont want to suffer the same indecisive fate, so i see myself either
finding a suitable solution to the commercial dilemma, or simply going
with a BSD style license.

What i am talking about is wether or not an individual can make money
by producing software, giving it away for free, but also licensing it
for commercial use.

> > I believe im more in the BSD style camp of open source licenses, where
> > if something is free, it should be truly free.  Except that i want
> > people who make money from it to give me some of that money, as is
> > only fair.
>
> There are many who share your preference for BSD-style licenses, but the
> second statement is only true in your mind.  You are welcome to attempt
> to prove that others believe the same by measuring your commercial
> success against the commercial success of true open source companies.
> Your belief that the GPL is fundamentally incompatible with commerce is
> factually incorrect, as my own experience, and the experience of
> numerous other open source companies demonstrates.  You should not use
> counter-factual information as the basis of an argument.

I have not said that the GPL is funfamentally incompatible with
commerce, but i do believe that 90% of commerce is not covered by the
GPL.  Theres a difference.