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: "Björn Terelius" <bjorn.terelius 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 20:35:01 +0200



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:
 
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.
 
...


If you dislike Joachim Durchholz choice of words, then why dont you write to him? What you did was to flame me for not knowing the definition of Free Software just because i choose the word "freedom" rather than "right".

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 never tried to redefine Freedom or Free. To begin with, I only quoted CC's homepage. I didn't attempt to discuss the definition of free until you brought it up. What I wanted to do was to point out that "programmers" were sort of "missing" from the list of types of creators.
 

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?

Yes you can use a non-standard definition,
but then you should state what definition you are using.
 

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.

Ok, I apologize, you have perhaps studied some logic.
Anyway, "Freedom" may have a very special meaning,
but freedom in the ordinary sence has a much broader
meaning. Which definition do you think came first, the
FSF definition or the one you will find in an encyclopedia?
 

 
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.)

I'll agree about that.

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.

Well good luck.
The FSF does not have a monopoly on the use
of the word freedom.
 





Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page