Development of Creative Commons licenses

[Francesco Poli <invernomuto AT paranoici.org>]

On Wed, 18 Jan 2012 14:28:28 -0500 drew Roberts wrote:

> On Wednesday 11 January 2012 17:05:58 Francesco Poli wrote:
[...]
> > 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
[...]

Please note that I said "software works": a stone sculpture does not
qualify as a "software work".
At least, not the physical object: maybe the information that is
"embodied" in the physical object, but not the object itself...

[...]
> > 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.

Quoting from:
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#GPLOtherThanSoftware

| Can I use the GPL for something other than software?
|
|     You can apply the GPL to any kind of work, as long as it is clear
| what constitutes the “source code” for the work. The GPL defines this
| as the preferred form of the work for making changes in it.
| 
|     However, for manuals and textbooks, or more generally any sort of
| work that is meant to teach a subject, we recommend using the GFDL
| rather than the GPL.

In the first part the FSF folks admit that any kind of work can be
licensed under the terms of the GPL.

The last part is just unfortunate propaganda to promote their bad
non-free license for documentation...

> 
> 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.

I think that here you are discussing the strength of the GPL copyleft,
rather than the level of freedoms granted by the license for
non-programmatic software works... 


-- 
 http://www.inventati.org/frx/frx-gpg-key-transition-2010.txt
 New GnuPG key, see the transition document!
..................................................... Francesco Poli .
 GnuPG key fpr == CA01 1147 9CD2 EFDF FB82  3925 3E1C 27E1 1F69 BFFE

Attachment: pgptx9e62amrX.pgp
Description: PGP signature