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: "Greg London" <greglondon.1 AT gmail.com>
  • To: "Discussion on the Creative Commons license drafts" <cc-licenses AT lists.ibiblio.org>
  • Subject: Re: [cc-licenses] Unbundling the GPL
  • Date: Wed, 25 Apr 2007 14:01:28 -0400



On 4/25/07, Björn Terelius <bjorn.terelius AT gmail.com> wrote:
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?
 
For your review:
 
https://lists.ibiblio.org/sympa/arc/cc-licenses/2007-April/005509.html
Joachim Durchholz jo at durchholz.org wrote:
 
I'd like to relicense some of that stuff in half-open form. NC-ND would
actually serve me well in some cases.
 
...

https://lists.ibiblio.org/sympa/arc/cc-licenses/2007-April/005525.html
I wrote:
when people talk about GNU-GPL and NC-ND as if they
were all part of the same thing, when people say they
want to use NC because it is "half-open" then people
who've been around and know the difference
are going to be telling you just how wrong you are.
 
...
 
So, I stand by my comment. I wasn't talking about you
specifically saying "half-open", I was talking about people
who play games with language, or simply don't know
what various words mean, and don't care.
 
People who say CC-NC-ND is "half-open"
and people who think "Freedom" can mean whatever
they want it to mean, are wrong.
 
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.
 
What does "just a definition" mean?
Is it arbitrary? Do you get to ignore
how everyone else uses the term?
 
 
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.)
 
I never said the definition is "TRUE".
See "No True Scotsman" fallacy.
I said "Freedom" has an already
existing meaning that another
closely associated organization uses
and you're not using it anything like
they are.
 
And don't resort to ad hominems about whether
I've studied math or logic or not. If you had studied
logic, you would know that such a comment is
a fallacy.
 
But again, just because FSF and others have
agreed on a useful definition doesn't mean that
the reest of their ideology is correct.
 
I don't care about FSF's ideology.
I actually disagree with a lot of their beliefs.
But I completely agree with the functionality
of their license. And what their license does
is guarantee that a work so licensed will
remain Free.
 
And you keep using freedom and rights as
if they're the same thing, as if they're completely
interchangable. as if spelling it with a
lowercase "f" means that you can use it
however you want.
 
People like you seem almost religous
about the concept of Free Software and
get mad at anyone who doesn't agree.
 
Perhaps you should stop making assumptions about me.
I am not religious about Free Software. I have no problem
with proprietary works and proprietary licenses in concept.
(I have a problem with DRM and the death of Fair Use
and infinite copyright terms, but that's a different topic.)
 
You just have to get into your mind
that not everybody shares your believes,
and there is nothing wrong with that.

 
No, you have to get into your mind
that I don't CARE WHAT YOU BELIEVE.
I want you to stop talking about putting
CC-NC-ND on your work and using the
word "freedom" (upper or lower case)
when talking about it.
 
 

 



Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page