Development of Creative Commons licenses

[Terry Hancock <hancock AT anansispaceworks.com>]

rob AT robmyers.org wrote:
> Quoting drew Roberts <zotz AT 100jamz.com>:
> 
> 
>>The FSF sayd the original BSD is Free but not GPL compatible IIRC. Yes:
>>
>>http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/index_html#GPLIncompatibleLicenses
>>
>>If they think BY and BY-SA are non-Free, can you tell us why?
> 
> 
> The FSF?
> 
> http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html#OtherLicenses
> 
> "There is literally no specific freedom that all Creative Commons licenses
> grant. Therefore, to say that a work "uses a Creative Commons license" is to
> leave all important questions about the work's licensing unanswered. When 
> you
> see such a statement, please suggest making it clearer. And if someone 
> proposes
> to "use a Creative Commons license" for a certain work, it is vital to ask
> immediately "Which one?""

This is a complaint about the branding confusion issue. It doesn't say
it's non-free. In fact, right above the text you quote it says:

"""
This is a copyleft free license meant for artistic works and
entertainment works. Please don't use it for software or documentation,
since it is incompatible with the GNU GPL and with the GNU FDL.
"""

So the FSF must be "incredible" too. ;-)

Cheers,
Terry

-- 
Terry Hancock (hancock AT AnansiSpaceworks.com)
Anansi Spaceworks http://www.AnansiSpaceworks.com