Development of Creative Commons licenses

[Ben Finney <bignose+hates-spam AT benfinney.id.au>]

Francesco Poli <invernomuto AT paranoici.org>
writes:

> On Mon, 2 Jan 2012 16:51:52 -0500 drew Roberts wrote:
>
> > 'If the work can properly be considered code,
>
> I think that this sentence is meaningless: everything (that may be
> processed by a computer) is code.
> Hence, if we are speaking about a digitally represented work, we are
> speaking about code.

I would agree if the term is “software”: all digital information is
software (as opposed to the hardware that contains it).

I think by “code”, though, Drew means “program code”.

Drew, would it be fair to re-state that clause as “If the work can
properly be considered a program”?

If so, then I don't understand why that distinction is important. Why
should we support dividing up the freedoms in a work depending on
whether the recipient can use it as a program?

Do recipients of non-program works deserve fewer freedoms?

> > and there exists a "preferred form of the work for making
> > modifications to it"
>
> Again, this condition is always satisfied.
> Any work that may be processed by a computer, may be modified.
> Among the possible forms, there always exists one that is preferred for
> making modifications.

Agreed.

-- 
 \       “The fundamental principle of science, the definition almost, |
  `\             is this: the sole test of the validity of any idea is |
_o__)                                 experiment.” —Richard P. Feynman |
Ben Finney

Attachment: pgpP_l9uU9vJl.pgp
Description: PGP signature