Development of Creative Commons licenses

["Dana Powers" <dana.powers AT gmail.com>]

This is silly.  There is no more reason to think RMS and the Freedom
Fighters have appropriated the word "freedom" for their own ends than
to think that Creative Commons has, or that the U.S. government has or
whatever.

Moreover, claiming that without a single definition for a term there
can be no acceptible limits to its meaning is specious and incoherent.

I do think you've read too much Orwell.

Dana

On 4/25/07, Greg London <greglondon.1 AT gmail.com> wrote:
> 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.
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> cc-licenses mailing list
> cc-licenses AT lists.ibiblio.org
> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-licenses