Development of Creative Commons licenses

["Gregory Maxwell" <gmaxwell AT gmail.com>]

On 4/25/07, Dana Powers <dana.powers AT gmail.com> wrote:
> 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.

<sarcasm>
Yea, too much Orwell, just like those fruity hippies that argue that
folks in Guantanamo aren't free, it nonsense ... the law lets us kill
terrorists on the spot, so obviously being in Guantanamo is a freedom.
</sarcasm>

Come on now.. how is designating something as released under a
"developing nations" license fairly described as "specifying freedom"?
Sure, you can call it technically a specification of freedom (just as
'none at all' is a specification of freedom) but to do so violates
peoples reasonable expectations. It's a misrepresentation.

I think it is okay to differ in the details with the commonly expected
behaviors, such as copyleft (which is only a restriction of freedom in
the same sense that anti-assault laws limit the freedom to swing your
fist), or in insignificant ways...  But to operate in a way which is
nearly the opposite of the common expectation of the word is
unacceptable... especially when there are some licenses which do
actually meet the expectation, but little is done to emphasize them.