Development of Creative Commons licenses

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

On Monday 05 February 2007 08:38 pm, Emerson Clarke wrote:
> Drew,
>
> I "freely" admit to being confused, i wouldnt have started this
> discussion if i wasnt, so thanks for your input...

If you want to start getting the thinking behind the GPL, I suggest you go to 
the FSF site and read some of RMS's writings. You seem very ignorant as to 
the history of copyleft and the GPL. I am perhpas guilty of assuming too 
much. It is easy to ignorant in so many areas. My ignorance keeps being 
brought to light around here.
>
> > 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.

Nope. That's not how it happened according to "legend."
>
> 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.

And personally, I think about the reverse. There is ample evidence that 
people 
do not willingly coptribute code unless such a license exists.

http://gpl-violations.org/

Again, though, we need evidence.

Have you personally released any of your own works with a free license or 
contributed to any of the free software you use?
>
> Thats not generally the kindof motivation which software developers
> use to spend hundreds of hours developing code which they will
> essentially give away.

I think you make a mistake in thinking that all of this is done to 
essentially 
give away. Sure, lots may be. But lots may be developed for pay.
>
> So yes i am confused, and i dont understand how the GPL enables freedom at
> all.

http://www.fsf.org/licensing/essays/free-sw.html

Well, there are two parts to it. You seem to have issues with the copyleft 
part.

Part one: Grant four freedoms.
Part two: Protect/ensure four freedoms on derivatives.
>
> True freedom comes when you let go completely, and that can only come
> when you have no license restrictions.

Although in a different realm, this is fairly parallel to: you are not 
legally 
free unless you are legally free to become a slave. Personally, I am OK with 
that legal restriction on my freedom especially in light of the protection we 
all get from the restriction.
>
> 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" ?

Because of privacy reasons. Do you have any examples that concern you where 
companies are making millions from GPL software that they are using behind 
closed doors?
>
> > > 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.

Whatever. Consider the two parts I mention above. Do you take issue with the 
first, the second, or both?

If both, Free Software or Open Source Software is probably not for you.
>
> 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.  

Well, lots of us in the Free Software community see how it benefits us.

> 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.

It is simple. You have expressed the motivations yourself.

With free software, you can have copyleft or non-copyleft free software.

With copyleftfree  software, if some company or individual wants to 
distribute 
a derivative of my software, it has to be copyleft and thus I can most likely 
get my hands on a copy and if I do, I can legally do with thier derivative 
what they have done with my original.

With non-copyleft free software, that same company can take my software, make 
a derivative, put the derivative under an all rights reserved copyright plan 
and now they take away my freedom with respect to the derivative that I gave 
them with my original. And they can do this without paying me either.

Those are the basic options with Free Software. Can anyone think of any 
others.

Take your pick or forget about Free Software. If you are still interested in 
Free Software, and prefer the copyleft option but don't like the GPL, can you 
formulate a better copyleft license?
>
> 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".

See the explanation above.
>
> 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.

No, nothing to do with control in the first instance. I prefer that my work 
not get locked up to where I lose legal access to it.
>
> > > 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.

Well, if we agree that companies never do anything, then sure. But companies 
do pay to have free software developed.
>
> 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.

Could be. I am not sure, but I have no wide knowledge.

> And if they werent paid for it, they would probably find some other
> way to do it anyway...

Well, could be. I know for me, I want to make Free Works. Iwould like to make 
more. To make more, I need to figure out how to fund the time.

It would not surprise me to find others with similar motivations.

Now, why I want to make Free Works is anotehr whole thing entirely.
>
> > > 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.

Quickly from sourceforge:

 Registered Projects: 140,417

GPL  1 - 10 of 58169 Results
BSD  1 - 10 of 6507 Results
> > >
> > > 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... :)

I will see what I can do for you though I am not a hugh fan of the dual 
license play.
>
>
> Emerson

all the best,

drew
-- 
(da idea man)