Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

cc-licenses - Re: [cc-licenses] Unbundling the GPL

cc-licenses AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Development of Creative Commons licenses

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: Joachim Durchholz <jo AT durchholz.org>
  • To: Discussion on the Creative Commons license drafts <cc-licenses AT lists.ibiblio.org>
  • Subject: Re: [cc-licenses] Unbundling the GPL
  • Date: Tue, 24 Apr 2007 19:28:12 +0200

James Grimmelmann schrieb:
Joachim Durchholz wrote:
James Grimmelmann schrieb:
Are there examples of significant legal disputes that have arisen out of
disagreements about the use of freeware? I would think that exactitide
of license doesn't matter so much.
Well... imagine a company with a mindset that's similar to SCO.
[...]

Who is this new SCO suing? The former customers of its freeware? Or
freeware developers? Both scenarios seem unlikely to me, given freeware
business models.

Actually, I find both cases possible. And given that there are a multitude of companies failing each year, I'd expect such a case to any year now.

> And I also don't see how license clarity would change
matters. The GPL is doing as much as any license could as a
counterweapon against SCO; SCO's claims, such as they are, have to do
with process, rather than with license clarity.

Sure, details differ.
Motives wouldn't. There are companies that would sue at the drop of a hat. Giving software developers a license that is known to work would discourage that.
(This is in fact one of the things that make the GPL attractive. Like the conditions or not, many developers know that the GPL will protect their work and keep them out of harm's way.)

The use of CC licenses for software is discouraged (for reasons already
noted).
I must have overlooked these.
Care to give a short list?

The list archives are full of them; this has been pretty heavily debated
over the years. First, software is functional. Ensuring that the
license gets right questions of continued functionality is important.
Second, software is produced in both /modifiable (source code) and
largely unreadable/unmodifiable (object code) forms, so that
source-specific terms are important. Third, software is often highly
interactive, which again leads to specialized terms. Fourth, software
routinely implicates patent rights, which are a whole additional ball of
wax. I bet some of the others here can fill in further reasons.

Basically, software is hard, and it's hard in a way that's unlike a lot
of creative or informational works. There are tough boundary cases, but
it usually seems to work best to have software-specific licenses for
software and general-purpose licenses for other kinds of stuff.

Thanks.

Though software being a hard case, a good license would be even more important.

The GPL is a good start - how about offering the full list of options to software developers?

Well, getting the license exactly right would definitely be something I'd want.
From the perspective of the licensee, that is; the licensor couldn't care less. Maybe that's another reason why such a license hasn't been drawn up yet.

What are you afraid of as a licensee?

Being sued by, say, Adobe or Microsoft because I overlooked some part of their EULA.
There's an additional scenario where somebody could have an interest in sueing me: maybe I'm driving a website that's criticizing their policy. All they need to do is to put some vague license condition that's basis enough for litigation, even if dubious; all they need to shut down my site would then be a simple threat.

If CC licenses are widely adopted, people will get suspicious of EULAs and other license garbage, and companies that insist on their homebrew licenses will feel opposition. I don't really expect Microsoft to change their EULA, but Adobe might :-)

Sounds like an improvement over the current situation to me.

Regards,
Jo




Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page