Development of Creative Commons licenses

["Greg London" <greglondon.1 AT gmail.com>]

On 4/25/07, Björn Terelius <bjorn.terelius AT gmail.com > wrote:

Do you really think that all freeware are just

crippled versions of commercial software?

 

 

When did I say ANYTHING about the quality of the work???

 I was giving you the very easy to measure, completely

objective way to determine whether a license is

Free or Proprietary. If the license gives away enough

rights that the original creator is equal to the community,

then the license is Free. If the license witholds enough

rights that the community is always at a disadvantage

over the original creator, then the license is Proprietary.

 

You can easily look at a copyleft license and tell that

it lands on the side labeled "Free". The community

becomes equal shareholder in the work.

 

If you look at NC or ND, it is immediately obvious by

this simple test that they are both Proprietary.

The community is held at a disadvantage by the

original author.

 

That doesn't mean I'm saying Proprietary is wrong and

Free is right. It just means that the definition is objectively

quantfiable, and NC and ND don't fit the "Free"

definition.

 

The alternative definition I keep hearing from the "Yeah but"

crowd basically boils down to "Freedom" is any Right at all.

Which means if I create a license which allows anyone

and everyone to create one copy of a work, print it out

on paper, and send that copy via registered mail to anyone

they wish, that this expensive and costly license for the

user somehow has something to do with Freedom.

By that definition, if I give up even the smallest and most

insiginificant right, and even if that right is expensive

and a burden to the downstream users, either in time,

labor, money, or energy, that it still meets the "yeah but"

definition of having something to do with Freedom.

 

No.

 

Sorry.

 

You don't get to play that game.

 

"Freedom" is not the same as "Some Rights Surrendered".

 

"Commons" is not the same as "NonCommercial NoDerivative".

 

 

 

 

There are many reasons for not giving away the source:

(snip)

In all these cases the project will be a fully functional, non free, program,
that won't fit your description of freeware as "guerrilla marketing, free
samples, hype generators etc."

 

 

Except in all of your cases, the original creator

witholds sufficient rights to maintain himself at an

advantage over the community. And that has

nothing to do with Freedom.

 

The author is witholding rights for his benefit,

rather than giving up enough rights that the

community and original creator are equals.

 

 

 

License break down into two simple categories.

The creator either licenses the work in such a way

that the community benefits as much as the creator.

OR the creator licenses the work in such a way

that the creator maintains an advantage over teh

community.

True, but you are assuming that the project is targeted at
a programming community.

 

No. I'm not. it's easy enough to simply look at the rights

given away to the community in the license and determine

whether the community and the original creator are equals

or whether the original creator maintains some advantage.

 

usage and medium are irrelevant.

 

You really see the world as black and white, don't you?

 

If the alternative is to play games with word definitions, then yes.

Have you ever considered the possibility of giving back a little
to the community, like a fully functional program.

 

But you're giving up those rights while maintaining yourself

at an advantage over the community.

There is nothing wrong with you using CC-NC,

but you're using it primarily for the way it benefits you

more than the community.

 

And that is about Commerce, not Freedom.

Start using the correct words, and we won't have a problem.

 

Besides I don't like your wording "give back"

as this implies that you got something from

the Free Software community to begin with.

 

 

I said "get back", not "give back".

 

If you release something under SA or GNU-GPL or BSD or BY

then you are actually giving the community something more than

you are directly getting back.

 

If you release something NC or ND, you're looking to make money.

You give away some free samples so that people buy something

from you. You intend to give away some rights with the hopes that

you will make more money if you hadn't given those rights away.

You are giving those rights away because of what you get back

in sales.

 

If you release something under copyleft, or public domain, the

community is on equal footing with you. You cannot enforce a

monopoly of the work itself. You can sell copies, but if the

community doesn't want to pay, you can't force them to buy it

from you.

 

I've licensed my Bounty Hunters: Metaphors for Fair IP Law

book under CC-BY. People still buy copies from me.

But if they don't want to do that, I can't force them.

 

The work belongs to them as much as it does to me.

If someone in the community wanted to sell copies,

I couldn't stop them. I've given the rights freely to

put myself on equal footing with the community,

and I can't force the community to pay me anything back.

 

I give up any advantage I have over the community.

 

That's fundamentally different than witholding rights

to keep myself in a priveledged position with regard

to the work.

 

It's also easy to see by simply looking at the wording

fo the varioius licenses whether they are a means

for the author to place the community as an equal

or whether they are a means for the author to maintain

some priviledge over the community.

 

Perhaps you might want to read "The Gift" by Lewis Hyde

http://www.amazon.com/Gift-Imagination-Erotic-Life-Property/dp/0394715195

it make make it a bit more clear the difference between

a gift economy based on equality and freedom,

and a commodity economy, based on competition.

 

I'm not saying one is evil and one is good.

But I AM saying that one is different from the other

in measurable ways.