Re: creative commons
On 01/09/07 12:13, MJ Ray wrote:
> I've no idea about CC's lawyers. They seemed very uncommunicative and
I'd speculate that they seemed that way on the threads I saw because
they probably were only interested in legal arguments and lots of the
conversation was about the philosophy. So they probably were not as
interested in that.
> Why? Because if it's posted often enough, people may start to believe
Well from the things I know about him I'd say he is trying. Put
another way, if Lessig walked in to an empty dinning room with two
tables, one that had a sign that said "Microsoft" the other that said
"GNU", he would sit down at the GNU table. :) I guess that's what I
mean in a general sense of the term "ally".
> I saw this recently and I can't put it any better:
I agree RMS put that differentiation well.
> free software and CC may be fellow travellers, but I've seen little
> evidence that they are allies.
Sorry, I didn't make it clear I was talking in the big picture in
terms of Microsoft.
> I'm fairly sure that it is legally possible to discriminate against fields
> in the ways that CC seem to want to.
OK. I also agree with that.
> I have no desire to strengthen their tools for that discrimination.
I'm guessing you mean tools like the license they are writing. It
might be more accurate to say the tools are the legal framework is
being adopted that regulates copyrights and trademarks.
> What would convince you that discriminating against commerce is incompatible
> with free software?
>
> Essentially, my main complaint against 'non-commercial' licensing is that
> they are Rich Man's Licence, requiring people to fund various things to do
> with it out of their own pocket.
Interesting. My perception for the rational of non-commercial clauses
are to defend and protect creative people from Rich Men. Maybe we can
talk about this more off list as maybe that's off topic for this list.
Enjoy,
Jeff
Reply to: