Development of Creative Commons licenses

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

Drew,

I "freely" admit to being confused, i wouldnt have started this
discussion if i wasnt, so thanks for your input...

> There is no non-commercial use clause in the license. The whole license is
> designed to prevent the software licensed under it from being used as
> non-free software under the terms of the license. Commercial is fine,
> non-libre is not.

Ok, so heres the bit i don't get.  The GPL is designed to propagate
and protect the notion of free software by forcing derivative software
to share the same license.

Surely this means that people got togeather and decided that it wasnt
enough to simply expect people to contribute back to the community,
rather they needed gentle encouragement, or a firm push in the way of
the GPL.

There must be some form of reasoning similar to this behind it or it
would not have the propagating terms which it does.

Personally i think the assumption is wrong, and i dont think that
forced compliance with any license helps open source.  It can only
diminish its uptake.  And i also disagree with the notion that people
will not willingly contribute code unless such a license exists.   In
fact i doubt there are very many open source projects at all which
exist soley becuase of the propagation clauses in the GPL.

Thats not generally the kindof motivation which software developers
use to spend hundreds of hours developing code which they will
essentially give away.

So yes i am confused, and i dont understand how the GPL enables freedom at 
all.

True freedom comes when you let go completely, and that can only come
when you have no license restrictions.

I get what your saying about it not really being a commercial use
restriction, but then why does it not extend to all software developed
in all contexts.  Why are companies allowed to develop software using
GPL licensed code behind closed doors and never contribute anything
back to the community whilst they clearly make millions from it.  How
does this support the notion of "libre" ?


> > I dont believe the GPL necessarily creates any more of a community or
> > encourages any more contribution than BSD style licenses do.
>
> I believe it does. We could leave it there, or look for metrics and evidence.
> Linux is under the GPL.
>
> > Atleast
> > not because of the non commercial clauses.  I dont think non
> > commercial clauses do anything to contribute to open source.
>
> Ah, but they do. Well, at least to Free Software which many equate to open
> source.
>
> I am happy to release my code GPL and other works BY-SAbut reluctant to
> release my code BSD or my other works BY.

Yes, but in some ways the GPL is just another doctrine and i think its
success has a lot to do with certain prominant evangelists.

As i said above, i dont see how the wording of the GPL nor the
restrictions it uses actually directly benefit the open source
community.  They do prevent commercial explotation to some extent
(though only the highly visible forms) but i dont see how they foster
greater involvement in the open source community.

I am interested in why you think you would release you works under GPL
and not BSD, what is the fundamental thinking behind this ?  ... or is
it, as i have sometimes, just a gut feeling that your not quite
confortable with it being completely "free".

I think perhaps it has something to do with the need for control, and
i struggle with it too.  But i do belive the BSD style licenses are
more true to the notion of free.

> > At the
> > end of the day it is individual developers who contribute time to free
> > software, not companies.
>
> This is simply not true. Well unless you are playing word games.

Ok, youve got me.  I was being pedantic, but in a sense there is still
a point there.

Most developers who work for companies which pay them to contribute to
open source projects do so becuase they want to.  Im sure it is often
something which they have sought out or requested to do specifically.
And if they werent paid for it, they would probably find some other
way to do it anyway...

> > 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.
>
> You could not do this with the BSD (it might be much more difficult with the
> BSD, your options for doing so would be reduced with the BSD?), you could
> with the GPL. There are a number of companies that do so.
>
> If you do not want to look for the examples yourself, shoot my an email
> directly.

Conssider yourself shot... :)


Emerson