Development of Creative Commons licenses

[Francesco Poli <invernomuto AT paranoici.org>]

On Thu, 5 Apr 2012 22:17:26 -0400 Andrew Rens wrote:

[...]
> On 5 April 2012 13:50, Francesco Poli <invernomuto AT paranoici.org> wrote:
[...]
> > I'm still not convinced that this clause meets the Debian Free Software
> > Guidelines. See my previous comment [1].
> >
> > [1]
> > https://lists.ibiblio.org/sympa/arc/cc-licenses/2012-January/006602.html
> >
> 
> You can regard me as one of those who are sceptical whether the Debian Free
> Software Guidelines should dictate licences used for many things that are
> not software such as free education resources.

The Debian Free Software Guidelines (DFSG) do not attempt to dictate
anything.
They are just guidelines to evaluate if a work (N.B.: a work, not a
license) is Free or non-free.

Since I personally believe that Free works are a good thing and should
be promoted as much as possible, I am trying to contribute to the
CC-v4.0 drafting process in the hope that CC-by-v4.0 and CC-by-sa-v4.0
may meet the DFSG and thus let works licensed under these terms be Free
works.

Please let's not restart the "this is not software"
debate/misunderstanding.
First of all, I use the term "software" in its broadest meaning. Being
tired of repeating myself, I described my point of view in this essay:
http://www.inventati.org/frx/essays/softfrdm/whatissoftware.html
Secondly, independently of the meaning one may want to attribute to the
word "software", I am convinced that the same freedoms that are
important for computer programs, are equally important for other
categories of works (such as documentation, opinion essays, images, and
so forth).

[...]
> >
> > Since I don't think that a license can (allow a licensor to)
> > forbid an accurate credit and meet the DFSG at the same time,
> > I recommend that this clause be dropped entirely from CC-v4.0
> > licenses, or, at least, amended so that it says:
> >
> > | You must, to the extent reasonably practicable, remove the
> > | information specified in (i) – (iii) above if the information is
> > | inaccurate or misleading and the removal is requested by Licensor
> >
> > I hope this suggestion may be implemented in the next draft.
> >
> 
> I've advised many potential users of Creative Commons licences who are
> reluctant to use Creative Commons at all, or plan to use Creative Commons
> Attribution No Derivatives because they are concerned that their
> reputations will be irreparably damaged by a remix of the works which they
> license under Creative Commons. Most have been sufficiently reassured by
> the provision which allows the licensor to require that the Attribution be
> removed to use CC By SA and CC By. If this provision is removed then many
> of those Licensors will choose to use CC By ND, or not to use CC at all.

I am sure that many people reluctant to adopt Free Software licenses,
may be convinced to adopt a given license, when non-free restrictions
are added to that given license.
I don't think that this should be a reason to add those non-free
restrictions to a given license, though.

I think the goal of CC-by and CC-by-sa should be to let the works
licensed under their terms be Free works.
Popularity of the license should not be a goal in itself and at all
costs...


-- 
 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: pgpda42MynStf.pgp
Description: PGP signature