Development of Creative Commons licenses

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

On Tuesday 02 October 2007 12:40 am, Gregory Maxwell wrote:
> On 9/30/07, Terry Hancock <hancock AT anansispaceworks.com> wrote:
> > > Even things like this are technically okay, they are violations of the
> > > spirit of the license and the likely intentions of the licenses. As
> > > such such actions should be avoided.. and may well be precluded by
> > > future editions of the GPL should practices like that become
> > > widespread.
> >
> > I disagree strongly.
> >
> > Many advocates of free software, including Richard Stallman, have
> > expressed the opinion that the "ethical compulsion" to make software
>
> [...]
>
> I was specifically thinking of a particular case where someone took a
> GPLed application then made an enhanced version which they wanted to
> distribute under terms more restrictive than the GPL.  This isn't
> permitted by the license because the spirit and presumably the
> original author intends and the language of the license is designed to
> preserve the freedom of the software.
>
> In the case I was thinking of the author of this enhanced version has
> attempted to skirt that requirements of the GPL by placing critical
> program data (such as all the UI text) as well as a lot of secondary
> data (documentation) under cc-by-nc-nd and claiming that removing it
> and replacing it would be a violation of no-derivs.

It seems a person making this claim to bolster their case might actually be 
making your GPL violation case for you.

>
> I was only interested in pointing out that the subject can be complex
> by trying to point out a case where the content can be easily be
> argued to be an essential and inseparable part of the software, and
> where incompatible licenses have been used in a hostile attempt to
> 'unfree' the software.

all the best,

drew