Development of Creative Commons licenses

[antoine moreau <antoine AT artlibre.org>]

Le 07/04/12 09:18, adam a peut-être écrit (may be wrote) :
> I do not believe you can convince even a small minority of software devs 
> that the GPL can be applied to other content - they will not believe 
> you. I also don't believe you can convince culture and knowledge workers 
> in the greater sense - that the GPL is not a software license. I have 
> tried repeatedly and the message does not float.
> 
> So, it might be a point to argue that this is the FSFs problem - get a 
> better marketing team - but promoting the GPL for non-software works is 
> by and large not their mandate as they see it.
> 

Hi,

I do agree. Michael Stutz, who wrote the DSL
https://www.gnu.org/licenses/dsl.html, the first copyleft license for
non-softwares works) tried to convince the FSF in 1997 but :

"When I approached the FSF about my experiments, at first they were
completely opposed to it. Richard Stallman told me that there was no
reason anyone should copyleft non-software works. He felt that way even
about software documentation! This was really the reaction from the
entire « free software » community---I still have emails from now-famous
« open source » personalities who literally laughed at me when I said
that non-software work could and _should_ be made free.
After some time I wrote the essay you'd mentioned [« Applying Copyleft
To Non-Software Information »] in an effort to demonstrate to others the
idea that copyleft was as important to software as it was to any kind of
work. Outside of some artists and likeminded people, it too was received
with derision."
(e-mail from Michael to me, march 08 2010, with his permitting for my
thesis about copyleft for non-softwares works
http://antoinemoreau.org/index.php?cat=these )

First, he used GPL for his book "Sunclipse" and other non-softwares works :
"But the GPL was not perfect: it was, after all, not a general-purpose
copyleft. It was written specifically with software in mind, and if it
were to be used by the general public for any type of work that would
have to be fixed---basically, the language of the preamble should have
changed and if memory services I think there were issues concerning what
constituted « source » material and also it needed to address the
freedom anyone should have to rename a derivative work"
(idem)

> CC on the other hand has a strong hold in this area and I would argue 
> that mindshare in this discussion is as important as the terms of the 
> license themselves. In that light I really believe it is both necessary 
> and possible to make a source requirement in the CC licenses.
> 
> A source requirement might be stated together with something like 
> "unless otherwise stated the artifact provided is to be considered to be 
> the source". This avoids the complex 'what is a source' but it does 
> place the emphasis on the license holder to consider what the source is 
> and the mechanical requirements of licenses that allow derivatives.
> 

Here is the real complexity of the meaning of "source". I think it is
completely different. A "source" for a non-software product is not a
mechanical one. It is a kind of link, an "inspiration", something in
fact very free, immaterial, a relationship out of real technical proof.
But it could be, sure, for some. There is an interesting hiatus between
non-software and software products. I think it could be possible to make
the compatibility between all copyleft licenses but if we want to make
it with the GPL, the GPL must evolve.

Best.

-- 

antoine