Development of Creative Commons licenses

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

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.

 

...

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".

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 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.