Development of Creative Commons licenses

[drew Roberts <zotz AT 100jamz.com>]

On Monday 05 February 2007 04:50 pm, Dana Powers wrote:
> I'm quite aware of the distinction.  But I don't think the wikipedia
> article is clear _at all_ wrt beer/speech.  

I just went back an read the entire article instead of just the key part.

I find it clear if you know that Free software = Libre software and not 
Gratis 
software.

However, nowhere does the article itself make this point. This is perhaps 
sub-optimal, however, it does link to:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_software for the term free software in the 
first paragraph.

This article makes the point.

> Moreover, I find the 
> association of "freedom" with "what the GPL provides" to be very misleading
> to people who are not aware of the "freedoms" defined by the free software
> movement.  

I don't think that is the association at all. The BSD also provides freedom. 
The GPL tries to ensure the freedoms it provides, the BSD does not try to 
ensure the freedoms it provides. (To derivatives.) Do you disagree with this?

> It is also quite clear that using the GPL would reduce Emerson's 
> "freedom" to restrict commercial use.  Allow me to quote myself:

Of course and your country may have laws which reduce your freedom to own 
slaves or even to be a slave.
>
> "Whether you think these restrictions make the GPL licensing system more
> compatible with "freedom" is an entirely separate question. "
>
> but I don't really want to debate what "freedom" should or should not be. 
> I simply think that article may very confusing for people who don't already
> understand the differences between BSD-stype and GPL-stype licensing.

Yes, unless they know that Free software means Libre software of click on the 
free software link. I agree with you. Do you contribute to wikipedia in a 
wasy that you could help remedy this situation? My work on wikipedia always 
goes away for some reason.
>
> dp

all the best,

drew

>
> On 2/5/07, drew Roberts <zotz AT 100jamz.com> wrote:
> > On Monday 05 February 2007 01:36 pm, Dana Powers wrote:
> > > "The GPL requires the software to always be free..."
> > >
> > > That's not true.
> >
> > Yes, it is true. You have fallen into the classic mistake with Free
> > Software
> > which is thinking that the word free refers to price (is gratis) whereas
> > the
> > word free actually refers to freedom (is libre) and if you go to the link
> > you
> > provided, you will see this is how it is used in context.
> >
> > "The main difference between the two licenses is that revised BSD
> > licenses are
> > permissive while the GPL is copyleft. The GPL requires the software to
> > always
> > be free, including derivative works, by requiring the software to always
> > be
> > licensed under the GPL. The BSD license only requires acknowledging the
> > original authors, and imposes few restrictions on how the source code may
> > be
> > used. As a result, BSD code can be more easily integrated into or
> > released entirely as proprietary software."
> >
> > Free BSD code can be used in a non-free program. The non-free (non-libre)
> > program can be given away (gratis) or sold (non-gratis.)
> >
> > GPL code can only be used in other GPL programs. Thus the code is always
> > free
> > (libre) but it may be given away (gratis) or sold (non-gratis.) Actually
> > with
> > the GPL instead of selling, you may say that you charge for transferring,
> > but
> > it still amounts to non-gratis.
> >
> > all the best,
> >
> > drew
> > --
> > (da idea man)
> > _______________________________________________
> > cc-licenses mailing list
> > cc-licenses AT lists.ibiblio.org
> > http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-licenses

-- 
(da idea man)