Development of Creative Commons licenses

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

On 4/26/07, drew Roberts <zotz AT 100jamz.com> wrote:

> >
> > 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.

In what way? Sure they have thought about it, but it is still a definition, in the sense that it is not possible to deduce from previous facts. And it the definition could have been made differently, for example that software is free it it is gratis.

> 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.

No, and I don't think it is entirely wrong, but I don't feel compelled to agree completely.
Some people say that Free Software is better than freeware "because it is Free". This however does not explain WHY it is better, since Free does not necessarily mean good. Whether Free is good depend entirely on what you think of the definition of Free.

> > 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.

Good point, but can you put your finger on the difference?

> 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?

Of course we should not "purposefully muddy the waters". Thats why most people spell free(dom) with capital F when they mean the FSF definition. If I understood Greg correctly he wanted us to stop using free(dom) in the ordinary sense and only use it in the FSF sense. That would mean changing the language, and I refuse to do that.

>
> 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?

Exactly, I dont think there is (or rather should be) any moral/ethical difference between licensing software and art.

Best regards
-Bjorn