Re: Draft summary of Creative Commons 2.0 licenses (version 3)
- To: Francesco Poli <email@example.com>
- Cc: firstname.lastname@example.org
- Subject: Re: Draft summary of Creative Commons 2.0 licenses (version 3)
- From: Thomas <email@example.com>
- Date: Sat, 02 Apr 2005 16:59:08 +0200
- Message-id: <424EB33C.firstname.lastname@example.org>
- In-reply-to: <email@example.com>
- References: <firstname.lastname@example.org> <20050326222757.GC2656@nozomi> <email@example.com> <firstname.lastname@example.org> <424B42B5.email@example.com> <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Francesco Poli wrote:
I suppose you are reading Barak Pearlmutter's DFSG FAQ
yes, it is a faq in debian.org, although in a personal page.
Should I not consider that faq?
The main point you seem to miss is that DFSG are indeed directed to
software, but with the term "software" in its widest meaning.
In other words, if, by "software" you mean programs only, then, no, DFSG
are not directed to "software" only, but to both programs *and* other
I hope to have clarified a little...
we are going in this direction ;-)
My understanding of software is not only programs.
But, for my (and others) point of view software is a genus, which includes
programs and non programs information as two *different* species.
I understand perfectly that this is not the opinion of this list, and I
am not here to try to convince you of the opposite.
What I see with expectation (as some of you, as far as I understand it
correctly) is to create a kind of "compatibility" between the the BY and
BY-SA and the dfsg.
This shouldn't be so hard, because, IMHO, your proposal to modify ccpl
regards "secondary" aspects. Let me clarify: secondary in the meaning of
not the most important liberties are regarded. More, I already pointed
out the the two point regarding trademark license and DRM clause may
improve the ccpl.
Well, as a matter of fact, authors always have absolute freedom to
choose the license they like for their own works.
Let me be more clear:
I write a text titled "legal aspects of copyleft".
I want to release it under the terms of BY-SA, 'cause this license is up
I want that my text be distributed as wide as possible, and of curse
into a Debian package regarding documentation (let's suppose).
This would not be possible because of incompatibility of license (*not
of the main rights*).
Am I (the author) free in deciding the license?
Hope to be more clear on this issue that I want to point out.
I think it's quite important, and hope it will make any sense for you,
Users, on the other hand, can never choose which license they receive
a given work under...
I think that the point is giving freedom to people that are *not*
copyright holders for the work, since the copyright holder already has
absolute power over his/her own work.
understand and agree.
Keep in mind that, in these arguments, when I say "software" I'm not
speaking of programs only: software is programs, documentation, images,
sounds, animations, literature, ...
Ok, but as others think different (see my opinion on this point above),
do you mind would it be possible to respect the pluralism in the concept
of freedom and of what exactly software is?
I'm going to develop this point.
You know that CC officially recommends gpl for programs, while offers a
set of licenses for other works. This means that cc is endorsing a
different view. However, is not prohibited use ccpl for programs.
Shouldn't we recognize a kind of pluralism in the concept of what
exactly are programs and software and how should they be treated, as far
as these different view reflect in licenses that are compatible with
I think this last point determine if we should keep developing this
discussion or not.
My opinion is, of curse, yes.
This is the reason because I hope that this project will go further.
But, as I said, it's just my personal view.