cc-licenses AT lists.ibiblio.org
Subject: Development of Creative Commons licenses
List archive
- From: drew Roberts <zotz AT 100jamz.com>
- 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 14:34:35 -0400
On Tuesday 24 April 2007 12:02 pm, 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.
> All that's needed is a history similar to SCO's: the old business model
> falters, new management desperately tries to find sources of income,
> reputation is irrelevant since the end is inevitable anyway, so we can
> sue anybody with impunity and hope that it will work often enough to
> drag on another year.
>
> > Or perhaps I am wrong, and there are big legal fights over freeware that
> > better licenses could have solved?
>
> I'm not aware of any.
> Of course, only SCO had the nerve to sue a heavyweight like IBM.
SCO did not sue over freeware though,it was over Free Software.
>
> > The use of CC licenses for software is discouraged (for reasons already
> > noted).
>
> I must have overlooked these.
> Care to give a short list?
>
> > But you can apply a CC license to software. For freeware,
> >
> > BY-ND seems fairly decent. Anyone can use the free version; commercial
> > intermediaries can make some money distibuting it conveniently; no one
> > can make money off of it. IF you take the freeware business model as
> > given, and IF you're not worried about getting the license exactly
> > right, BY-ND seems like a perfectly fine license.
Sure people can make money from ND licensed works. What angle are you
thinking
of when you say they can't?
I do agree that BY-ND seems to fit freeware quite well at first glance.
>
> 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.
>
> Regards,
> Jo
all the best,
drew
--
(da idea man)
-
Re: [cc-licenses] Unbundling the GPL
, (continued)
- Re: [cc-licenses] Unbundling the GPL, Björn Terelius, 04/24/2007
- Re: [cc-licenses] Unbundling the GPL, drew Roberts, 04/24/2007
- Re: [cc-licenses] Unbundling the GPL, Björn Terelius, 04/24/2007
- Re: [cc-licenses] Unbundling the GPL, Joachim Durchholz, 04/24/2007
- Re: [cc-licenses] Unbundling the GPL, drew Roberts, 04/24/2007
- Re: [cc-licenses] Unbundling the GPL, Björn Terelius, 04/24/2007
- Re: [cc-licenses] Unbundling the GPL, James Grimmelmann, 04/24/2007
- Re: [cc-licenses] Unbundling the GPL, Joachim Durchholz, 04/24/2007
- Re: [cc-licenses] Unbundling the GPL, James Grimmelmann, 04/24/2007
- Re: [cc-licenses] Unbundling the GPL, Joachim Durchholz, 04/24/2007
- Re: [cc-licenses] Unbundling the GPL, drew Roberts, 04/24/2007
- Re: [cc-licenses] One use of nc and nd: ad-hoc harmonisation of fair use, rob, 04/24/2007
- Re: [cc-licenses] One use of nc and nd: ad-hoc harmonisation of fair use, Javier Candeira, 04/25/2007
-
Re: [cc-licenses] Unbundling the GPL,
Joachim Durchholz, 04/24/2007
- Re: [cc-licenses] Unbundling the GPL, Björn Terelius, 04/24/2007
- Re: [cc-licenses] Unbundling the GPL, Joachim Durchholz, 04/24/2007
- Re: [cc-licenses] Unbundling the GPL, Greg London, 04/24/2007
Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.