Re: Draft summary of Creative Commons 2.0 licenses (version 3)
On Sun, Apr 03, 2005 at 03:10:24AM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> I see nothing other than an appeal to a silent majority. Do you really
> want me to post the lurker song? You're getting awfully close.
>
> Anyway, no points to answer; my previous mail stands.
Evading Matthew's counterarguments doesn't convince anyone but yourself.
You're claiming, as far as I can tell, that any license that can be twisted
in a non-free way is categorically non-free. Since that's possible with just
about every license, that claim is obviously false.
Unless the BSD license is non-free, since one might claim that "redistribution
and use" means both, not either, so you must redistribute the work to be
allowed to use it; the MIT license is non-free, claiming that "supporting
documentation" applies to documentation for the work that's created and
distributed independently by a third party; that GPL#6 "impose further
restrictions" forbids me from writing code in an obscure, hard-to-read coding
style (eg. GNU's), since the ability to modify a work is reduced as a result.
None of these licenses mean any of these things, but the words can be twisted
and people could claim it. That doesn't make the licenses non-free, it
doesn't mean the licenses need to be changed (it won't help), and it doesn't
necessarily mean that obviously bogus interpretations would stand in court--
that's one of the big reasons we strongly recommend using well-established
licenses (such as the above three).
--
Glenn Maynard
Reply to: