Re: creative commons
On 01/09/07 02:10, MJ Ray wrote:
> Jeff Carr <basilarchia@gmail.com> wrote: [...]
>> It seems to me the CC is written with the same kind of mentality and
>> intentions that the DFSG was written. [...]
>
> Hardly. CC fans seem to see nothing wrong with discriminating against any
> field of endeavour, such as commerce or technical protection.
I wonder if that's an accurate description of the position of the
Creative Common's lawyers. It seems lots of questions have been raised
and the lawyers there are thinking about the issues.
>>> http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2006/10/msg00167.html
>>> http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/cc-licenses/2006-November/004472.html
>>> http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/cc-licenses/2006-December/004779.html
>>> for further details.
>> Well, these are a bit extreme I think. I'm not finding the arguments
>> convincing.
>
> Care to explain?
Sure. Let me start with this general background premise:
The creative commons is a group that is an ally to Debian and the free
software movement. We have a bunch of world class legal minds trying
to help work within a legal framework to provide protection for
various projects and works that can help the free software movement.
The CC lawyers are trying to draft a generic, useful and good license.
I think that's worth keeping in mind and repeating on this issue :)
In the conversations like the ones you sent links for above, there are
many theoretical examples of how the license may be used for bad or
non-DSFG purposes. Those are mostly ignored by the CC guys (as far as
I can tell) and are unconvincing for me for the same reason:
The lawyers are looking for legal problems. Positive feedback about
the legal aspects are helpful. One good read on the subject of
potential legal problems I've seen:
http://fr.creativecommons.org/articles/sweden.htm
I remain unconvinced that the CC lawyers and advisers don't have
reasons to add an optional non-commercial clause for a purpose that
will be important to free software in the future and in alignment with
the intent of the DSFG.
Jeff
Reply to: