Development of Creative Commons licenses

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

On 4/26/07, Joachim Durchholz <jo AT durchholz.org> wrote:
 

> It's obvious that to the majority of those who're most active here, my
> suggestions are not welcome.

 

Jo, suggestions are completely welcome.

But you've got to get that a lot of your suggestions show

that you simply don't understand some basic vocabulary,

and that has a massive contribution to creating a long,

long thread, trying to sort out what is what.

 

Your second post in this thread here demonstrates:

https://lists.ibiblio.org/sympa/arc/cc-licenses/2007-April/005485.html

 

I do think that GPL and LGPL can be improved upon.   ...
There's no option for Noncommercial or No-Derivative.

...

Just imagine that people wouldn't be forced to roll
their own licenses because the GPL agenda doesn't fit the constraints
under which they can make their software Open Source.

 

That you consider adding NC and ND to GPL to be

an "improvement" is your opinion. And a number of

people will likely disagree with you.

 

But the fact that you thought that such a restriction

falls under the definition of Open Source  would

seem to make clear that you don't know the basic

vocabulary.

 

Every time I tried to explain some vocabular term

you used had a specific meaning that you weren't

using it as, you seemed to take it as a moral judgement.

 

Rob pointed out that Open Source doesn't jive with NC and ND,

and you seem to miss the point of vocabularly and respond

"I'm not sure that this would be a Bad Thing."

https://lists.ibiblio.org/sympa/arc/cc-licenses/2007-April/005488.html

 

He wasn't saying it was "Bad". He was saying you were using

the wrong vocabulary for the concept you were discussing.

 

I pointed out some misuses in vocabulary and you responded

as if I were saying one approach was unethical. I lost count

how many times I responded to you with something to the

effect of "I don't have a problem with (vocabulary term)"

or "That doesn't mean (term) is evil"

 

I know I can get hot under the collar sometimes, and I apologize

for that.

 

But a lot of this thread was simply trying to explain to you the

vocabulary you were misusing, the concepts you had collapsed,

and so on. It's not that no one wants to hear suggestions from

new people. But OpenSource is not the same thing as NC-ND.

"proprietary" has a certain meaning. And licenses such as GPL

are trying to accomplish completely different goals than something
like NC-ND. So, trying to lump them together meant you didn't

know the differences between them.

 

I apologize for any insults thrown your way. But most of what I

posted wasn't meant as an insult, and wasn't meant to stop new

people from making a contibution. Most of it was simply trying

to explain the vocabulary and concepts being used.

 

Greg