Development of Creative Commons licenses

["Björn Terelius" <bjorn.terelius AT gmail.com>]

I'm loosing my patience with you.

On 4/25/07, Greg London <greglondon.1 AT gmail.com> wrote:

On 4/25/07, Björn Terelius < bjorn.terelius AT gmail.com> wrote:

2) I've never, not even once, said that NC/ND is "half open" or anything like that.

 

 

Someone else did in this discussion and you seemed to be coming

down on the same page as them.

So I'm guilty by assosiation am I?

> Some people have also voiced fear of a political backlash
> if CC endorsed the use of software licenses. Please explain.

See above. the floss software folks had spent years fighting
over and eventually sorting out what "Free" meant.
Then CC comes in with NC, ND, SA, BY licenses all under the
"Some Rights Reserved" banner as if all the licenses are
different degrees of the same thing. They're not.

They did not  "sort out what Free meant". They just made a definition. Whether or not freeware is free depends entirely on the definition of free. Since the Free Software definition is universally accepted, people use tit, but that does not mean that it is a superior ideology.

 

 

Wow. I just started a thread about CC misusing the word "Freedom"

on their front page, and low and behold, you're telling me that

Freedom means whatever you want it to mean.

 

I think you just proved my argument that CC shouldn't use

ambiguous terms if it wants to be accurate.

 

On the other hand, if CC wants to use completely subjective

terms and encourage people to redefine those terms to mean

whatever they want it to mean, then, yeah, they should probably

keep using the term "Freedom".

 

Somewhere out there, someone thinks using CC-NC-ND-BY

has something to do with Freedom.

 

If CC is more interested in people using their licenses

than in people understanding what it is they're doing,

then they should continue to encourage people to redefine

terms to fit their needs. Freedom is as freedom does.

 

Freedom is like a box of chocolates.

You never know what you're going to get.

 

Because apparently, everyone wants THEIR license to qualify

as having somethign to do with FREEDOM, because FREEDOM

is cool.

 

So, by all means, keep arguing that all the people who worked

out what Free as in Speech software means, just came up

with an arbitrary definition, and keep arguing that you should

be able to change the definition of freedom so that you can

use CC-NC-ND-BY and still call it a "Free" license.

Notice that I was spelling freedom with  a lower case "f".

I am not trying to redefine the acceped use of Freedom as applied to software. That why I wrote "Since the Free Software definition is universally accepted, people use it". But it is still just a definition. If you had studied any math or logic you would know that a definition can not be true or false, (Or perhaps i should say that a definition is true by definition. It is a tautology.) There are however more or less useful definitions , and a definition is seldom arbitrary. But again, just because FSF and others have agreed on a useful definition doesn't mean that the reest of their ideology is correct. People like you seem almost religous about the concept of Free Software and get mad at anyone who doesn't agree. You just have to get into your mind that not everybody shares your believes, and there is nothing wrong with that.

Freedoms and rights are the same thing.

 

 

OH, REALLY?????
 

 

IF THEY"RE THE SAME THING, THEN USE "RIGHTS" INSTEAD OF "FREEDOM".

 

But you won't. because they're not the same to you.

 

The word "freedom" is far more desirable from an emotional point of view than

"rights". Freedom is all warm and fuzzy. Rights is boring and legal.

Actually I don't give a damn. I don't attach any emotional aspect to a definition. I don't get warm and fuzzy. I think the entire problem is that you attach emotions to words and get warm and fuzzy (or hot and angry when something upsets you). And I maintain that freedom and right is the same thing. For example any person can tell you that the two statements "You have the right to..." and "You have the freedom to..." are equivalent. Hence there is no difference.

If the Free Software Moverment wanted a name that couldn't get confused they should have choosen a different name like the less common "Libre". I'm not going to change the english language just because you are sensitive.
 
Anyway, if you read one of my earlier replies to somebode else, you will see that I said that the non-free ND and NC options are currently accepted parts of CC licensing terms. I also said that I did not want to discuss whether that is good or bad. You will find that my original point was that since it is accepted for artists to release their works under the non-free ND license, it should not be worse from a moral/ethical point of view if a programmer released their creations under a similar non-free ND license.

PS. If you're going to respond to this post, please read it before you do. Make sure you understand it, and read it again. THEN type. Oh, and you might want to cool off just a bit too.