Development of Creative Commons licenses

[Joachim Durchholz <jo AT durchholz.org>]

Terry Hancock schrieb:
> Joachim Durchholz wrote:
> > I don't see any problems with NC (Non Commercial). I think you mean ND - 
> > No Derivatives.
>
> No, both are traps for free software authors:
>
> ND - use my code in anything new, I sue you

Right.

> NC - use my code in anything new, I extort you for money or I sue you anyway

No. "Use my code in anything new that you make money of and I'll sue you."

> (Oh yeah, and I can sue you just for using it unchanged, too!)

No. The CC license always implies the right to pass on.
(Or did I get that wrong?)

> At least if no source is provided, I have a strong hint that the
> software is non-free.

Please qualify what you mean by "free".
Either it's "freedoms", then even without source, you can have freedoms 
(e.g. to pass it on).
Or it's "freedom", the state of being free, which is inapplicable to 
software since it doesn't have consciousness.
Or it's the FSF's definition of "free", which is by definition not the 
case if we use anything but the GPL, so there's no point in even trying 
to be free in that sense.

> And why would you provide source for either? I have no economic
> incentive to contribute to your codebase either way.

I might get my patches applied in the next version of the software.
So I might get bugfixes and functional improvements earlier; that can be 
enough of an incentive to contribute.
I'm pretty sure this motive is the sole one for most contributions from 
commercial users, whether the project is GPL or not - the only 
prerequisites are source availability and willingness to accept patches, 
licensing is irrelevant if somebody already uses the code and wants it 
fixed (and fixed once and for all, not reapplying the same patches for 
every new version).

Regards,
Jo