Re: creative commons
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'm not surprised to see MJ Ray say this, since he has chosen to ignore
the fallacies in his arguments. The only "field of endeavour" that CC
licenses block is the "field of endeavour" of "copying and distributing
without honoring the license" which ALL copyleft licenses (including the
GPL) do (indeed all licenses -- free or otherwise -- prevent some form
of copying and distributing, or they would simply be public domain).
Re-interpreting "copying and distribution" as a form of "use" has NEVER
been understood to be indicated by the DFSG, despite the efforts of MJR
and others to force this radicalization of those Guidelines.
MJ Ray and some others don't like the particular way in which this
copyleft is implemented -- because it inconveniences certain kinds of
distributors, and -- indirectly -- the people they want to distribute
to. While I disagree with that judgement, I respect that that's their
choice to make. Some people don't like any form of copyleft: I'm
perfectly happy to acknowledge their right to do that.
However, the assertion that it is a fundamental issue of freedom (either
an abstract concept or as described by the DFSG) is nothing but a snow job.
I'm not going to write yet another re-hash of this argument. There's
plenty of it on this list and the cc-licenses list. It's all been said
already, so go check the archives.
Cheers,
Terry
--
Terry Hancock (hancock@AnansiSpaceworks.com)
Anansi Spaceworks http://www.AnansiSpaceworks.com
Reply to: