Development of Creative Commons licenses

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

On Wednesday 25 April 2007 07:14 pm, Björn Terelius wrote:
> 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.

In that it is  adefinition that has been acted upon and had certain, to my 
mind beneficial, effects in the world. It is a working definition. Whatever, 
I am perhaps too tired at this point to think clearly.
>
> > 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.

Of course not, we are, hopefully, free beings and think for ourselves.

> 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.

Well, here is one reason. It can be legally fixed if you find a problem that 
you are of a mind to fix. Does that do it for you? Were you not aware of that 
benefit?
>
> > > > 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?

Is that a serious question? If so, care to word it another way?
>
> > 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.

Have you bothered to read RMS's point on the matter? Do you think that the 
moral/ethical situation/standard re software needs to be lowered? Or do you 
think the moral/ethical situation/standard re art needs to be raised?
>
> Best regards
> -Bjorn

all the best,

drew
-- 
(da idea man)