Development of Creative Commons licenses

["Prodromos Tsiavos" <p.tsiavos AT lse.ac.uk>]

A few thoughts and a CC history question ;)

The practical aspect
- there is a good reason why we have not debated that extensively the 
standardization of ND-type licences for software whereas the discussions 
regarding SA-type licences (for software, content or both) constantly appear 
on this mailing list since its inception: ND-type licences do not involve 
any mixing of material and hence standardization is not really necessary for 
increasing the horizon of the relevant material. In other words the 
interoperability issue does not come into play.
- A standardized ND-type licence for software would nevertheless be useful 
for other reasons and hence CC may be interested in supporting such a 
scheme. Indicatively, such a standardized licence would allow greater 
clarity in the licensing terms regarding the use of the software by the End 
User and promote a minimum standard of good licensing practices for 
freeware.
- I am not sure a vendor would move from freeware to free software as a 
result of her experience with a standardized ND-type licence. It is more 
likely she is going to do it only if it fits her business model. Having said 
that, it would potentially push towards a clearer expression of licensing 
terms and in that sense it could be a positive development.

The political aspect:
- CC already has a dubious reputation regarding its relationship with 
principles of free as in free software and a rather good link with free as 
in free choice. If we go for yet another non-free software-like licence 
(irrespective of how useful it may be), we need to assess the political 
impact of such an initiative. Especially if this is to be done in the realms 
of software which is the FSF/Debian home court...

...and the CC history question:
-How did we end up with the specific original Licence Elements? Could 
someone from CC let us know why THESE licence elements were deemed as 
expressing the needs of specific creative communities? for instance 
cc-sampling was the result of Negativland and Gilberto Gil. What about the 
basic licences?

thnx
pRo

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Björn Terelius" <bjorn.terelius AT gmail.com>
To: "Discussion on the Creative Commons license drafts" 
<cc-licenses AT lists.ibiblio.org>
Sent: Tuesday, April 24, 2007 10:53 AM
Subject: Re: [cc-licenses] Unbundling the GPL


Rob Myers wants to abolish the ND option of all CC licenses, but I don't
think he speaks for the entire community. Does the community wish to
abolish the standard CC ND lisence? If so, then why was it ever created?
Of course I can understand that those who dislike ND doesn't want to
participate in creating an ND license for software, but the fact
remains: CC ND exists. Why should CC endorse this for art bun not software.

As for the usefulness of an ND license for software, consider a FPS-game
like counter-strike or whatever. If the source was distributed publicly
it would be easy to modify the client to cheat. Anybody with any
programming experience could create a client that automatically aim for
the head or something. On the other hand is is extremely difficult to do
this without source if it means reverse engineering the project.

Here's another point. Everybody who has ever used a free, open source
program, please raise your hands. (Everybody raises their hands) Ok now
everybody who has ever modified an open source program, raise your
hands. (Very few does) The point is that in reality, very few people use
the rights of modification and commercial distribution. Someone will
remark that for many projects would not have become as good without the
GPL or free licenses. This may be true in many cases, and I think that
everybody should choose the best software available for their need. On
the other hand, the FSF thinks everybody should use free software, even
if there are better non free programs. Yet, a lot of gratis but non-free
programs exist. See below.

I did not quite understand your response to the fact that freeware
exists. There are many good freeware projects and they don't use any
standardized license, because there is none. Hence the incompatibility
exists. Adding a standardized license would make the freeware more
useful, and could possibly persuade the developers to release it as a
free project later.

-Bjorn Terelius


Rob Myers wrote:
> Björn Terelius wrote:
>
> > I agree with Joachim Durchholz, it would be great if the Creative
> > Commons made adaptations for software. I can't understand why some of
> > you guys dislike the idea so much.
>
> It's not a dislike. It's a considered position based on the history of
> Free Software.
>
>
> > After all, why should it be possible
> > for an artist to release their creations as ND
>
> It shouldn't. ND should be abolished and replaced with a Fair Use 
> guarantee.
>
>
> > but not possible for a
> > programmer based on some loosely defined "ethical principle" of open
> > source.
>
> The OSI have a written definition of what they think Open Source is. If
> you have an alternative definition in mind you will need to give it, as
> otherwise people will assume you mean the standard one.
>
> Software is a tool, it is a machine. To ensure that you can use it you
> need to be able to modify it (otherwise bit-rot sets in). You cannot do
> this (usefully) without the source and the ability to modify and
> recompile it. ND is simply worthless for software.
>
> The same is not true of art. You can make the case that freedom of
> speech ends up requiring almost identical freedoms to software, but you
> get there by a different route.
>
>
> > The Creative Commons are not the same as FSF and does not have
> > to share the FSFs opinions. I think that the programmer should have the
> > freedom to choose the license he sees fit for his project, even if it
> > isn't open source.
>
> They have. But it is not CC's responsibility to help them reproduce
> historical mistakes that nobody else wants to touch with a bargepole.
>
>
> > That a ND licence for software would "cause needless
> > division, friction and incompatibility" is simply not true.
>
> It is entirely true. It creates software that cannot be modified to be
> used, that cannot be combined with other software, and that does not
> work with other licenses. It is a white elephant license.
>
> It won't make its users any extra money and it won't protect their
> reputation.
>
>
> > The
> > incompatibility already exists. Just search the net for "freeware" and
> > you will find thousands of  gratis but non-free programs.
> > www.freewarehome.com alone claim to have more than 4500 programs for
> > download, each probably with its own license.
>
> I suggest that people who think they want an ND license just use
> Microsoft's Reference License (ms-rl). Microsoft are programmers and
> have written this license to reflect their needs. So if you have the
> same needs as Microsoft, this is the license for you.
>
> - Rob.
> _______________________________________________
> cc-licenses mailing list
> cc-licenses AT lists.ibiblio.org
> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-licenses

_______________________________________________
cc-licenses mailing list
cc-licenses AT lists.ibiblio.org
http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-licenses 


***** Email confidentiality notice *****
This message is private and confidential. If you have received this message 
in error, please notify us and remove it from your system.

The London School of Economics and Political Science (the School) is a 
company limited by guarantee, registered in England and Wales, under 
registered number 00070527, and having its registered office at 10th Floor, 
Tower One, Houghton Street, London WC2A 2AE.

The inclusion of this information does not of itself make this email a 
business document of the School and, to the maximum extent permitted by law, 
the School accepts no liability for the content and opinions in any 
non-business emails.