Cc-uk mailing list

["Andres Guadamuz" <a.guadamuz AT ed.ac.uk>]

Rob,

Thanks for the comments. 

>>I won't be using their code if I have to use that license and it's not
GPL-compatible, sadly it isn't worth it. <<

If there are problems with the GPL in French law, then people should adapt
it to comply with their local legislation. Otherwise, there is always a
chance that somebody will attack the licence and win because the provisions
do not accommodate local copyright law. I have read and spoken to people who
have concerns from Spain, France and Germany about the validity of the GPL
in those countries. If the choice is between using a possibly unenforceable
licence, and an enforceable one, then I think developers should choose the
one that works.

However, I share your concern about creating many different versions of the
same licence. I agree with you, and I think that the solution is to have
general licences, such as CC and GPL, and use them until a local court has
ruled against them. But I also believe that developers are entitled to
create different licences, under different names, that comply with local
legislation. Otherwise, local developers may be risking their own work by
using an unenforceable licence. 

>>Personally I think even the CC variants are too much difference,
everything should be GPL-equivalent (CC-SA),  although I know that's not
going to be a universally popular position. :-) <<

I agree, and I think that the solution is to have a definition with minimal
standards that a licence should have. 

>>Yes because it's a pain to have content (or code) on the other side of a
license ghetto wall. Look at what's happened with "Open Source" licenses,
there's dozens, all incompatible with some of the others.<<

I actually believe that is not a problem. GPL does not suit everybody, if
Apache wants to draft their own licence, more power to them. I understand
the problem with "share-alike" clauses in this scenario, but I really don't
believe in creating a GPL monoculture. 

>> The idea is to share, freedom of movement is an important Freedom. :-) <<

I thoroughly agree, but the freedom to draft your own licence should also be
an important freedom ;-) 

>>Microsoft et al manage to license their software to their own satisfaction
around the world. I don't see why Open Content shouldn't manage
similarly...<<

This is true, but Microsoft is an entirely different model. Their typical
EULA is very simple: you buy our software, you can sometimes use our
software, you cannot do anything else with it, thank you very much. Besides,
they have a network of local firms around the world, and the resources to
use them. They have the power, and the money to implement their licence. On
the other hand, the licensing model for FLOSS, CC and open access in general
involves very complex legal relationships. Many concepts are new and have
not been tested in court, so getting the licence right is very important. It
is also important to think about locality, because we are generally talking
about individual creators and programmers who do not have the resources to
enforce their work around the world.  

Andres
 

-----Original Message-----
From: cc-uk-bounces AT lists.ibiblio.org
[mailto:cc-uk-bounces AT lists.ibiblio.org] On Behalf Of Rob Myers
Sent: 13 July 2004 20:58
To: cc-uk AT lists.ibiblio.org
Subject: Re: [Cc-uk] New CC-UK license draft

On 13 Jul 2004, at 17:18, Andres Guadamuz wrote:

> -  I personally don't see the point of changing the UK licence too 
> much and call it a CC licence, as if one disagrees with the general 
> idea and structure of the existing licence, why not change it into an 
> incompatible licence and distribute it under another name?

Yes, although again reducing a global market to a national one isn't a good
idea. A group of French researchers have just released a GPL-style license
specifically tailored to avoid problems in French law for the GPL's
provisions:  
http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=04/07/12/
2318236&mode=thread&tid=117&tid=99
I won't be using their code if I have to use that license and it's not
GPL-compatible, sadly it isn't worth it. :-(

> - Do we really want a CC licence monoculture? Just a thought.

Yes because it's a pain to have content (or code) on the other side of a
license ghetto wall. Look at what's happened with "Open Source"  
licenses, there's dozens, all incompatible with some of the others. The idea
is to share, freedom of movement is an important Freedom. :-)

Personally I think even the CC variants are too much difference, everything
should be GPL-equivalent (CC-SA),  although I know that's not going to be a
universally popular position. :-)

Microsoft et al manage to license their software to their own satisfaction
around the world. I don't see why Open Content shouldn't manage similarly...

- Rob.

_______________________________________________
Cc-uk mailing list
Cc-uk AT lists.ibiblio.org
http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-uk