Re: Draft summary of Creative Commons 2.0 licenses (version 3)
Francesco Poli wrote:
yep, sorry ;-)
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.
Thanks.
[...]
On the contrary! :)
I think you should go on reading this useful document: I asked just to
make sure you knew about its existence! ;-)
Yep, and starting to understand your point of view on freedom and
software, without agreeing in all the cases; but at least I'm starting
to understand the different vocabulary between dfsg and CC.
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.
Of curse, I was doing the same, maybe without choosing the better words,
but as you know, I am not an English speaker ;-)
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 think that one of the biggest differences between CC and dfsg is the
meaning and the value we give to the word "software".
Remember that the goal of CC is to give tools (licenses) that allow the
author to use the copyright not in its "default" version, but in a
"creative" way.
That's the reason why CC has a set of licenses, which go from the most
restrictives (BY-ND-NC) to the most free (BY-SH).
On the second category are we focusing to find out some dfsg compliance ;-)
But to get this is necessary to fix the "software-different-meaning-issue".
thomas
Reply to: