Development of Creative Commons licenses

[drew Roberts <zotz AT 100jamz.com>]

On Wednesday 25 April 2007 12:13 pm, Björn Terelius 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?
>
> > > > Some people have also voiced fear of a political backlash
> > > >
> > > > > if CC endorsed the use of software licenses. Please explain.
> > > >
> > > > See above. the floss software folks had spent years fighting
> > > > over and eventually sorting out what "Free" meant.
> > > > Then CC comes in with NC, ND, SA, BY licenses all under the
> > > > "Some Rights Reserved" banner as if all the licenses are
> > > > different degrees of the same thing. They're not.
> > >
> > > They did not  "sort out what Free meant". They just made a definition.
> > > Whether or not freeware is free depends entirely on the definition of
> > > free. Since the Free Software definition is universally accepted,
> > > people use tit, but that does not mean that it is a superior ideology.
> >
> > Wow. I just started a thread about CC misusing the word "Freedom"
> > on their front page, and low and behold, you're telling me that
> > Freedom means whatever you want it to mean.
> >
> > I think you just proved my argument that CC shouldn't use
> > ambiguous terms if it wants to be accurate.
> >
> > On the other hand, if CC wants to use completely subjective
> > terms and encourage people to redefine those terms to mean
> > whatever they want it to mean, then, yeah, they should probably
> > keep using the term "Freedom".
> >
> > Somewhere out there, someone thinks using CC-NC-ND-BY
> > has something to do with Freedom.
> >
> > If CC is more interested in people using their licenses
> > than in people understanding what it is they're doing,
> > then they should continue to encourage people to redefine
> > terms to fit their needs. Freedom is as freedom does.
> >
> > Freedom is like a box of chocolates.
> > You never know what you're going to get.
> >
> > Because apparently, everyone wants THEIR license to qualify
> > as having somethign to do with FREEDOM, because FREEDOM
> > is cool.
> >
> > So, by all means, keep arguing that all the people who worked
> > out what Free as in Speech software means, just came up
> > with an arbitrary definition, and keep arguing that you should
> > be able to change the definition of freedom so that you can
> > use CC-NC-ND-BY and still call it a "Free" license.
>
> Notice that I was spelling freedom with  a lower case "f".
>
> 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. 

It is a bit more than just a definition.

> 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.) There are however more or less useful
> definitions, and a definition is seldom arbitrary. But again, just because
> FSF and others have agreed on a useful definition doesn't mean that the
> reest of their ideology is correct. 

Of course not, doesn't mean it is incorrect either.

> People like you seem almost religous 
> about the concept of Free Software and get mad at anyone who doesn't agree.
> You just have to get into your mind that not everybody shares your
> believes, and there is nothing wrong with that.

Here is something to chew on:

http://creativecommons.org/about/history

"Like the free software and open-source movements, our ends are cooperative 
and community-minded, but our means are voluntary and libertarian."

It is CC who makes the association with those movements.

"Taking inspiration in part from the Free Software Foundation's GNU General 
Public License (GNU GPL), Creative Commons has developed a Web application 
that helps people dedicate their creative works to the public domain — or 
retain their copyright while licensing them as free for certain uses, on 
certain conditions."

Perhaps CC made a mistake in making these things public? Perhaps it leads 
people arriving here from those domains to assume certain things?
>
>
> Freedoms and rights are the same thing.
>
> > OH, REALLY?????
> >
> >
> > IF THEY"RE THE SAME THING, THEN USE "RIGHTS" INSTEAD OF "FREEDOM".
> >
> > But you won't. because they're not the same to you.
> >
> > The word "freedom" is far more desirable from an emotional point of view
> > than
> > "rights". Freedom is all warm and fuzzy. Rights is boring and legal.
>
> Actually I don't give a damn. I don't attach any emotional aspect to a
> definition. I don't get warm and fuzzy. I think the entire problem is that
> you attach emotions to words and get warm and fuzzy (or hot and angry when
> something upsets you). And I maintain that freedom and right is the same
> thing. For example any person can tell you that the two statements "You
> have the right to..." and "You have the freedom to..." are equivalent.
> Hence there is no difference.

They are seriously not the same. If I am imprisoned wrongly, I may have the 
right to do something while lacking the freedom to do it.

But again, CC makes the association to those movements. Should they put in 
bigger disclaimers?
>
> If the Free Software Moverment wanted a name that couldn't get confused
> they should have choosen a different name like the less common "Libre". 

Right, a non-english word. It may have been better to use that non-english 
word even for english speaking peoples,but they chose the english version of 
it. English has these issues. We do the best we can.

> I'm 
> not going to change the english language just because you are sensitive.

It is not a matter of changing the language. Should we purposefully muddy the 
waters though? Do we create confusion on purpose? Is that the goal?
>
> Anyway, if you read one of my earlier replies to somebode else, you will
> see that I said that the non-free ND and NC options are currently accepted
> parts of CC licensing terms. I also said that I did not want to discuss
> whether that is good or bad. You will find that my original point was that
> since it is accepted for artists to release their works under the non-free
> ND license, it should not be worse from a moral/ethical point of view if a
> programmer released their creations under a similar non-free ND license.

For the record, do you contend that there is no  moral/ethical difference re 
software and art when it comes to licenses etc. such as we are discussing?
>
> PS. If you're going to respond to this post, please read it before you do.
> Make sure you understand it, and read it again. THEN type. Oh, and you
> might want to cool off just a bit too.

all the best,

drew
-- 
(da idea man)