Development of Creative Commons licenses

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

On Wednesday 11 January 2012 17:05:58 Francesco Poli wrote:
> On Thu, 5 Jan 2012 10:02:47 -0500 drew Roberts wrote:
> > On Wednesday 04 January 2012 07:46:52 Ben Finney wrote:
>
> [...]
>
> > > 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?
> >
> > If we could nail down "source" requirements for non-code, there would be
> > less of a need to make this distinction.
>
> I am convinced that a definition of source code for non-programmatic
> software works (that is to say, what you call "non-code") has already
> been nailed down.

Answer this then:

I make a stone sculpture of a god and put it in a public park with a BY-SA 
license.

John comes along with a block of wood and copies my stone statue in wood, he 
puts the BY-SA license on the wooden version. He sells the wooden version to 
you. What is the source?

Jack paints the statue on canvas with oils and puts the painting under the 
BY-SA as well. He sells the painting to Sue. What is the source?

> It's the same definition that holds for programmatic software works and
> is included in the GNU GPL (I would especially refer to version 2):
> "the preferred form of the work for making modifications to it."
> I think that this definition embodies what is really needed to avoid
> putting recipients in a position of (technical) disadvantage with
> respect to the author, when it comes to making modifications to the
> work.

I think you are thinking only in terms of works that are or perhaps were at 
one time in the digital realm. What about for works that have never yet maid 
it there?
>
> > > Do recipients of non-program works deserve fewer freedoms?
> >
> > In my mind, they do not deserve fewer freedoms. But in the mind of the
> > folks behind the GPL, they do deserve fewer freedoms. (To use that
> > terminology.) So, I don't want any of my non-code works to fall under
> > their licensing control as I do not trust them to be concerned about
> > preserving those same freedoms for my non code as they intend to preserve
> > for my code.
>
> I think that releasing a work and allowing it to be distributed under
> the terms of the GNU GPL, does *not* put this work under the "licensing
> control" of the FSF.
> Especially when a finite set of GPL versions is chosen, rather than
> "version X or later" (which is a infinite set of possible versions,
> namely version X + any existing or future versions published by the FSF
> later than version X).

Well, no current version does a good enough job and why trust that future 
versions will improve when they have a stated unconcern for its applicability 
to non-code.

I think I prefer the risk of "or later" licenses to the risk of silos when 
people become unreachable or have a change of mind.
>
> It's true (and unfortunate) that the FSF promotes lower freedom
> standards for non-programmatic software works.
> However, it does not do so by publishing a GNU GPL that holds
> non-programmatic software works to these lower standards (at least, it
> hasn't yet, and I hope it will never do that).
> What the FSF does, in order to promote lower freedom standards for
> non-programmatic software works, is recommending the adoption of other
> licenses than the GPL for those works.
>
> Hence, by adopting the GNU GPL for a work, one is really holding this
> work to the higher freedom standards that the FSF thinks only programs
> deserve (but that I personally think all software works, both
> programmatic and non-programmatic, deserve).

No, one is not. The license is designed to ensure Freedom for code, it does 
not necessarily protect the same Freedoms for non-code. Saying it does does 
not make it so.

gpl library -in-> program => program must be gpl.

gpl or by-sa photograph -in-> book => book does not have to be gpl or by-sa

by-sa music -in-> movie => movie does have to be by-sa

gpl music -in-> movie => does movie have to be gpl? make the case if you say 
yes.

all the best,

drew