Re: Debian-approved creative/content license?

[Ben Finney <bignose+hates-spam@benfinney.id.au>]

Terry Hancock <hancock@anansispaceworks.com> writes:

> The true distinction is between "aesthetic works", meaning works
> which are valued for themselves (i.e. you sensually appreciate the
> work in one form or another) and "utilitarian works", meaning works
> whose principle value is in how they are used.

That's a disctinction which may be interesting (certainly it's more
interesting than "creative"/"non-creative"). However, it's a
distionction which can only apply to the combination of a work *and* a
person appreciating it *and* the time at which they are
appreciating. If any of those change, the distinction can also change.

So it's not valid to make the distinction depend *solely* on the
work. Since a free license applies *only* to a work (i.e. it does not
distinguish based on who is receiving the work nor when they do so),
it's not a useful distinction to make between the types of licensing
required for different works.

-- 
 \      "Some forms of reality are so horrible we refuse to face them, |
  `\     unless we are trapped into it by comedy. To label any subject |
_o__)     unsuitable for comedy is to admit defeat."  -- Peter Sellers |
Ben Finney