Development of Creative Commons licenses

["Greg London" <greglondon.1 AT gmail.com>]

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.