[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Draft summary of Creative Commons 2.0 licenses (version 3)

On Sat, 02 Apr 2005 16:59:08 +0200 Thomas wrote:

> Francesco Poli wrote:
> > 
> > Hi Thomas!
> > 
> ciao Franceso

Please, do not reply to me directly Cc:ing the list, as I didn't ask it.
Better reply to the list only, instead: I'm a subscriber and would
rather not receive replies twice.

> > I suppose you are reading Barak Pearlmutter's DFSG FAQ
> > (http://people.debian.org/~bap/dfsg-faq.html), right?
> > 
> yes, it is a faq in debian.org, although in a personal page.
> Should I not consider that faq?

On the contrary!  :)
I think you should go on reading this useful document: I asked just to
make sure you knew about its existence!  ;-)

> 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.

Yes, the same kind of "compatibility" that there is between the DFSG and
any (DFSG-)free software license: you can call it "compliance" (the
license passes the DFSG).  ;-)

According to  http://creativecommons.org/weblog/entry/5293
there are already at least 10 million works published under a CC
If I read the data correctly, (only) 20 % of them are under a
possibly-free-in-the-future CC license (that is: by + by-sa + sa), while
2 % are in the public domain.
This means that at least 2 million works would have been DFSG-free, if
those three licenses had followed the DFSG from the beginning...

We believe that, for a work to be considered Free, at least the rights
enumerated in the DFSG must be granted.
Since we value freedom, we would *love* to increase the number of
published Free works: that's why we are trying to get the licenses

> 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.

I agree: the proposed fixes would not fundamentally change the nature of
CC-by or CC-by-sa.

> > [...]
> > 
> > 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 to me.
> I want that my text be distributed as wide as possible, and of curse 
> into a Debian package regarding documentation (let's suppose).

These are very good goals.

> This would not be possible because of incompatibility of license (*not
> of the main rights*).

To be more precise, this would not be possible because the license is
too restrictive, and the Debian project has promised its users to not
distribute too restrictive works in its `main' section (that is, the
Debian distribution proper).

> Am I (the author) free in deciding the license?

Yes, you are.
You can choose whichever license you like: even something like the MS
EULA, but, in that case, don't be surprised we don't like your terms and
conditions!   ;-)

The situation is the following:

 * you create the work
 * you choose the license
 * we choose the works we are interested in (yours or other ones? that
 depends, among other things, on the rights we have over your work and
 over the other ones)

> 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,
> too. ;-)

It makes sense, but I think you are missing the central point: you can
always decide how many permissions you are willing to grant over you own
works, but, if you are being too restrictive, do not expect that people
who value freedom like your conditions!

> > 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?

Mine was just a reminder of what I mean when I say "software".
I'm not at all trying to impose the same linguistic choices on you!
It's just to clarify.

As to the matter of freedom: we believe that the same freedoms are as
important for non-programs as they are for programs.
YMMV, but, if you feel differently, do not complain when we call
non-free something you would call "free", "open source", "open content"
or whatever...

> 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.

We know, and it seems we cannot do much to change this view.
We can express our point of view and we could try to persuade people
(note however that the current effort is *not* about changing CC
philosophical vision), but we cannot impose anything...

> However, is not prohibited use ccpl for programs.

Of course it's not.
I don't know if it makes sense, but anyway I would never encourage it...

> 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 secondary modifications?

Well, it's not my personal highest desirability goal, but it could be
worth the effort, as long as we cannot achieve something better...

> I think this last point determine if we should keep developing this 
> discussion or not.
> My opinion is, of curse, yes.

If all this can possibly increase the probability to get the licenses
fixed, I think it's worth doing...

    :-(   This Universe is buggy! Where's the Creator's BTS?   ;-)
  Francesco Poli                             GnuPG Key ID = DD6DFCF4
 Key fingerprint = C979 F34B 27CE 5CD8 DC12  31B5 78F4 279B DD6D FCF4

Attachment: pgpWtbJKuc6A1.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Reply to: