Development of Creative Commons licenses

[Joachim Durchholz <jo AT durchholz.org>]

drew Roberts schrieb:
> Perhaps if CC were to offer all while strongly promoting only the Free there 
> would not be as much concern.

I'd like such a strategy.

> Also, if there were a Free CC brand to clearly
> distinguish between the Free and non-Free, it may work better.

Would be fine by me.
Though I see a possibility for disagreements here. The same license 
might be considered "free (libre) enough" in one area and non-free in 
another (e.g. software needs many more freedoms than text to be free).

> > It's one of the things I dislike about the FSF. They're trying to draw
> > me into their position even in those situations where I don't want to.
>
> Well, sure they do. Just don't get drawn into things you don't agree with.

Of course, they're free to take a "take it or leave it" stance.

My problem is that I'm left with no good alternative when "take" is not 
what I want.

> > It's also an effective strategy. It's CC's obligation to decide whether
> > they want to be nice or effective, and their judgement call whether
> > being nice might be more effective in the very long run.
>
> I don't see the FSF as not being nice. (They may or may not be.) There is a 
> world of either FUD or serious misunderstanding surrounding the GPL though.

Agreed.

> > > > On the minus side, this strategy has prevented the FSF from
> > > > creating a license for those cases where ND would have been
> > > > legitimate, polarizing the programmer community into those that
> > > > are "pro" and "contra" and preventing an unideological
> > > > discourse.
> > >
> > > I see this as a plus. CC needs something similar in my view. And
> > > it is still possible to have a calm and respectful discourse even
> > > with the FSF taking such a stand on the license side.
> >
> > It is possible, of course, but no other license has draw so much 
> > ideological debate.
>
> Sure, because it is the one that makes demands of you if you want to
>  sell/distribute the code or build upon the code and sell/distribute
> your work. Demands that you not restrict others just as you were not
> restricted. People want to be free to restrict others. Can you see a
> way around this issue?

There are *many* things that are being criticised.

One is that they are being "socialist", on the grounds that they are 
trying to destroy the software market. (The latter is certainly true for 
the classical sell-the-software, lock-the-customers-in, 
milk-the-customers market, of course, and good riddance to it.)

Another is that they are driving an ideological debate. (Empathically 
declared that software should be liberated just as the slaves were is 
just one example.)
Ideology can mobilize the masses, so it can help a cause; on the other 
hand, it does provoke counter-ideology, heated debates and flamewars, so 
it can be detrimental, too.
The problem is that many think that the adverse effects outweigh the 
advantages. And many are simply repelled by ideology per se.

The third one is what I have been presenting as my position: that the 
GPL and LGPL are too limited choices, that there are legitimate cases 
outside the spectrum that the FSF recognizes.

And the fourth one is the one that you have introduced: that there are 
always the sleazy types who'd like to restrict where they were not 
restricted themselves.
I don't have much respect for that stance, nor would any other informed 
person, I'd think :-)

> > Of course, that may also be because the GPL is from people who see
> > ideology as an important part of their work. 
>
> Thereis that, but I am not sure you can make a copyleft license that will not 
> have the same issues no matter how little ideology you have behind it.

SA *is* a copyleft license.
Yet CC does not have the first of the three issues above:
* CC is not considered "socialist".
* CC is not doing an ideological debate.
* CC offers a wide spectrum of licenses.

What other issues would there be?

> And the stated ideology/philosophy can lead to trust where no stated
> ideaology can leave one uneasy.

Can't say I'm uneasy about CC...

> The FSF maintains a list of Free licenses and comments on them from their 
> point of view.
>
> They want to promote and protect Free Software. How can they go about doing 
> this better than they currently do? (License wise.)

Reword and recheck the CC licenses for software, for example.

Regards,
Jo