Development of Creative Commons licenses

[Joachim Durchholz <jo AT durchholz.org>]

Terry Hancock schrieb:
> Joachim Durchholz wrote:
> > Sure, we'd have CC licenses that don't fit the definition of "Free and 
> > Open Source Software".
> >
> > I'm not sure that this would be a Bad Thing.
>
> I am.
>
> The sheer political backlash would be quite sufficient to make it a "Bad
> Thing". :-O

Please elaborate.

First, I'm not sure that a political backlash is unavoidable.

Second, I'm not sure that a political backlash is undesirable. 
Disagreement need not be a Bad Thing, for example, if the outcome is a 
clearer view of the issues.

I'm open to arguments in both areas.

> Besides, there's very little reason to create such a license. It would
> achieve nothing over using By-NC for software,

I'd be happy if CC simply checked its existing licenses, adapted them so 
that they'll fit for software, and changed the recommendations.

However, I don't expect that the currently available license building 
blocks from CC are a good match for software. Access to sources is an 
important part, and no CC license covers that.
It *might* be a good idea to "backport" source access (interpreted as 
"preferred form for editing") to the standard clauses. If somebody 
releases a picture built from a gazillion of layers and somebody wants 
to exchange just the background, it would be helpful if the released 
information consisted of not just the picture but the layers.

> except that it might reveal the source code, which is actually a
> negative to the user -- because seeing the source code can be used to
> argue that you copied it. This is the trap with Microsoft "Shared
> Source" licenses and the like.

The burden of proof would still be with MS, and copying is difficult to 
prove. MS would need additional evidence to make that case.

Of course, you really should not look at the sources, to avoid 
inadvertent copying which would help MS argue the case.
But then no license can force you into copying, inadvertent or not.

> Anyone interested in producing free-licensed software would generally do
> better to avoid exposing themselves to the sight of non-free code.

Sure.

> IOW, NC-licensed "open source"[1] software is actually WORSE than
> proprietary closed source code.

I don't see any problems with NC (Non Commercial). I think you mean ND - 
No Derivatives.

> [1] Obviously I don't mean "open source" in the OSD sense, but merely in
> the sense of having source code you can read.

Call that "published source" if you wish :-)