Development of Creative Commons licenses

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

On Thursday 26 April 2007 03:07 am, Björn Terelius wrote:
> On 4/26/07, drew Roberts <zotz AT 100jamz.com> wrote:
> > On Wednesday 25 April 2007 07:14 pm, Björn Terelius wrote:
> > > 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?
>
> Of course I am aware of that and many other benefits,
> but they are all dependent on the definition of "Free".
> My point is that we should not attach any emotions to
> "Free", by association with the ordinary word free.

The thing is freeware and Free Software both properly use free in relation to 
software.

You can sort of think of it as if "free" was really more then one word but 
all 
spelled the same way.

English just generously give us this little gift. It is something we have to 
deal with. It requires constant explanations. People tried open. It was 
really no clearer.

Can you think of a better english word? Libre would work for Free Software in 
another language.

This leads to an interesting question. For all of the languages that CC 
licenses are offered in, how many have this problem where libre and gratis 
use the same word?


> The statement "because its Free" only explains why
> a particular piece of Free Software is good, once you've
> decided for yourself that Free Software in general is good.

I am not sure I get this objection. Do you want "sound bite" answers for 
people? You can have a piece of Free Software that is junk from a utility 
point of view, but fine from a license point of view. It may be fine from a 
lincense point of view but not so hot from a developer/support community 
point of view.

However, all things being equal, my position is that Free Software is better 
than freeware. (And I will accept less from a utility point of view to go 
with Free Software over freeware.)
>
> Anyway, I did not start the discussion on the word "Free",
> and I would be grateful if we could drop it.

I'll try. It can be hardto windthese things down nicely.
>
> > > > 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?
>
> Yes, it is a serious question. In what way are freedom and rights
> different?

Let's be stupid and say that the police in my town come and bust into my 
house 
in the middle of the night with no reason or evidence, take me straight to 
jail and stick me in a cell. This would be unconstitional and violate my 
rights.

In the morning, when I come to, I will have the right to go to work but I 
will 
not be free to do so.

Is my finger not pressed on that difference firmly enough?

I am not trying to have the more general argument with you though.
>
> > > > 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?
>
>  No, do you have a link?

You know, I thought I would be able to find one easily, but I can't.

Here are some that might but useful in this context while not being exactly 
right:

http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/shouldbefree.html
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/why-free.html

I do remember reading where he chose not to comment on the situation as it 
relates to anything other than software. (IIRC that is.)
>
> I think first of all that the moral/ethical ideal should be the same.
> In my opinion, I think ND and NC are morally/ethically ok for
> both software and art.

First, you do get that if you convince a certain subset of people that they 
are equivalent, their response will be, oh, then ND and NC must be unethical 
in the art world as well.

Personally, so far, I am not firmly settled on the issue from an ethical 
point 
of view. That said, I only want to use Free Software in the long run. And 
that is roughly where I am when it comes to art as well.

As a matter of fact, I am leaning more and more to the position that non-Free 
art acts like pollution in the public realm.
>
> -Bjorn

all the best,

drew
-- 
(da idea man)