Development of Creative Commons licenses

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

On Wednesday 07 March 2007 11:52 pm, Luis Villa wrote:
> Apologies for the OT digression; I thought this was worth clarifying
> for Drew, lurkers, and the archives, but many here may not find it
> enlightening.
>
> On 3/7/07, drew Roberts <zotz AT 100jamz.com> wrote:
> > On Wednesday 07 March 2007 10:19 pm, Luis Villa wrote:
> > > On 3/7/07, drew Roberts <zotz AT 100jamz.com> wrote:
> > > > > > Huh? You have lost me there. Can you explain and give examples?
> > > > > > Isn't this impossible by definition?
> > > > >
> > > > > I use the term 'open source' loosely here; not OSI-approved, but
> > > > > rather in the broader family of source-available software copyright
> > > > > licenses, some of which are similar in spirit to NC.
> > > >
> > > > Now I understand, but I would suggest that this might not be the best
> > > > way to go if you care about Free or Open Source projects.
> > >
> > > Could you elaborate/explain what you mean here?
> >
> > Sure. I can try at least.
> >
> > I am finding people using open source and copyleft and other terms in
> > ways that are less than accurate. I think this is going to lead to extra
> > confusion. I don't think it is worth doing.
>
> Using "open source" precisely is impossible because no one really
> knows what it means. To quote OSI's own definition page:
>
> "[T]he term [open source] has become widely used and its meaning has
> lost some precision."

You are correct here, but I think you are making my point for me. We got here 
because of people not using open source precisely. (Either out of ignorance 
or on purpose.)
>
> So, yes, you're correct, there is no such thing as an OSI Certified
> (TM) non-commercial license, but there are many licenses with various
> non-commercial clauses which are open source within the general, more
> widely used meaning of the word.

I don't think people who care about FOSS should go down that road is all I am 
saying. Should I not have thought you might care? (I am not asking this with 
bad "tones.")
>
> For a recent discussion of the problems with the definition of 'open
> source', you might want to read
> http://radar.oreilly.com/archives/2007/02/is_open_source.html

I know that there have been problems from the break actually.
>
> and followups:
> http://blogsearch.google.com/blogsearch?hl=en&q=radar.oreilly.com%2Farchive
>s%2F2007%2F02%2Fis_open_source_1.html&btnG=Search+Blogs
>
> You'll find that I use the term Free Software with an almost religious
> fetish for accuracy. This is possible because the term has both a
> clear written definition *and* a long and strong tradition of specific
> usage which conforms with that written definition.

I try to do that as well although that too is a constant struggle. I tend to 
like the english language a lot, but this is one case where I wish we had our 
own libre and gratis...
>
> Tangentially, I think in your journal entry you confuse copyleft with
> FSF Free Software licenses; the concepts are related, but as the FSF's
> copyleft page notes, "[c]opyleft is a general concept; there are many
> ways to fill in the details." 

Actually, I don't.

> The key to copyleft is not the specific 
> freedoms guaranteed, but rather the use of copyright to force further
> redistribution under specific terms. 

I disagree with this. I think it is an "all rights reversed" situation. It is 
not the specifi license or how the terms of the license guarantee the 
freedoms, but I do think you can't have a non-Free work properly considered 
copyleft.

> So the CC-SA family (inc. NC) are 
> copyleft licenses. 

My take is: BY-SA yes, BY-NC-SA no. So, given my take on this, copyleft and 
sharealike would not be synonyms.

> In the future, you might want to link to 
> http://freedomdefined.org/Licenses#Copyleft as a definition of
> copyleft; it is more clear and concise than the FSF or wikipedia
> pages.

I wouldn't as I disagree with the take there. Perhaps if it changes. You will 
find if you check that I have been contributing there already though.
>
> Luis
>
> P.S. I was slightly miffed that you seemed to imply that I didn't
> understand what open source meant, and/or that I didn't care. On
> re-reading, I realize this is probably my own fault for misreading
> what you said, but you might want to be more clear in your own
> language when it might be construed to be condescending to others.

Thanks for the input. I do try. I fail more than I would like though so I try 
not to take offence when the responses hint that I failed. (Not that this one 
did that.)

I try and treat most of my email as converstaions. They are far from realtime 
though and they don't carry a lot of the extra info that a face to face 
conversation do so it is easy to misread things. It is also easy to miswrite 
them as well...

all the best,

drew
-- 
(da idea man)