Development of Creative Commons licenses

[Rob Myers <rob AT robmyers.org>]

Terry Hancock wrote:

> Trying to use NC/ND licenses for software though, is even more niche,
> and less-defensible (and less competitive) because we know there is a
> better way to promote production, which is very successful. In this
> context, it's hard to justify the restrictions, because they are
> "unnecessary evils".

NC and ND will inhibit production both directly (people won't derive so 
much) and indirectly (people won't buy as much and incentiviseate the 
NC/ND producers to make more). But this is not the main issue.

Software is a tool. People shouldn't be fooled by the existence of 
written source code or the legal bodge that declares this a literary 
work. A Free Software license just says "you can use this screwdriver as 
you like", whereas a EULA says "you cannot use this screwdriver to open 
paint tins, you mustn't tell your friends how to use it, oh and you're 
renting it not buying it". The EULA is clearly a limit on your freedom, 
it is not just part of a fun range of choices for consumers.

So people asking for NC or ND for software are asking how they can sell 
you a screwdriver that they can forbid you from using in certain ways 
without negotiating with them. As a business plan that is unlikely to 
appeal more to people than just sending someone round to screw their 
desk together or just selling them the screwdriver without silly 
restrictions, and as a social act it is coercive and exploitative.

- Rob.