Re: Unbundling the GPL

>From our FAQ: "We strongly encourage you to use one
of the very good
software licenses available today."

For more information see:

http://wiki.creativecommons.org/FAQ#
Can_I_use_a_Creative_Commons_license_for
_software.3F

>Date: Mon, 23 Apr 2007 15:47:11 +0200
>From: Joachim Durchholz <jodurchholz.org>
>Subject: [cc-licenses] Unbundling the GPL
>To: cc-licenseslists.ibiblio.org
>Message-ID: <462CB8DF.4040104durchholz.org>
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-15;
format=flowed

>Hi all,

>does anybody know why the CC project hasn't released
software licenses yet?

>Regards,
>Jo


>------------------------------


_______________________________________________
cc-licenses mailing list
cc-licenseslists.ibiblio.org
http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-licenses

Thinh Nguyen schrieb:
>>From our FAQ: "We strongly encourage you to use
one of the very good
> software licenses available today."

Been there, read that.

However, I do think that GPL and LGPL can be improved upon.

Not so much in the way of serving their respective purposes
better - in 
fact they do that just fine.
However, they aren't applicable to all situations. The GPL
is 
Attribution/Derivative/Share-Alike, the LGPL is
Attribution/Derivative. 
There's no option for Noncommercial or No-Derivative.

I think cc.org could help here. From a layman's point of
view, all 
cc.org would have to do would be a broader definition of
Derivative, 
namely that the licensor would have to give out all the
means to 
actually produce a derivative works as far has he has them.
That should 
cover source code, patent rights, keys, whatever.
This being just an informed layman's point of view, I'm
pretty sure 
there's a lot of legal footwork involved to get this right,
but it would 
be very helpful. Just imagine that people wouldn't be forced
to roll 
their own licenses because the GPL agenda doesn't fit the
constraints 
under which they can make their software Open Source.

Just my 10c,
Jo
_______________________________________________
cc-licenses mailing list
cc-licenseslists.ibiblio.org
http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-licenses

Joachim Durchholz wrote:

> This being just an informed layman's point of view, I'm
pretty sure 
> there's a lot of legal footwork involved to get this
right, but it would 
> be very helpful. Just imagine that people wouldn't be
forced to roll 
> their own licenses because the GPL agenda doesn't fit
the constraints 
> under which they can make their software Open Source.

The Open Source definition explicitly precludes NC and ND
licenses. So 
it is not possible to call something Open Source that is
licensed with 
those constraints.

- Rob.
_______________________________________________
cc-licenses mailing list
cc-licenseslists.ibiblio.org
http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-licenses

On 4/23/07, Joachim Durchholz <jodurchholz.org> wrote:
> However, they aren't applicable to all situations. The
GPL is
> Attribution/Derivative/Share-Alike, the LGPL is
Attribution/Derivative.
> There's no option for Noncommercial or No-Derivative.
>
> I think cc.org could help here.

If by "help" you mean "cause needless
division, friction and
incompatibility", then yes . Even if
one buys into the notion that
there are different "sharing cultures" around
culture as a whole, the
open source/free software movement has clearly converged on
a high
standard of freedom. The success stories of Apache, Linux,
MySQL, and
so on would have been impossible without commercial use
rights. If you
want to create a new fringe movement, I don't think it is
the role of
CC to support that.


-- 
Peace & Love,
Erik

DISCLAIMER: This message does not represent an official
position of
the Wikimedia Foundation or its Board of Trustees.

"An old, rigid civilization is reluctantly dying.
Something new, open,
free and exciting is waking up." -- Ming the Mechanic
_______________________________________________
cc-licenses mailing list
cc-licenseslists.ibiblio.org
http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-licenses

On Tue, 2007-04-24 at 08:54 +0200, Joachim Durchholz wrote:
> Erik Moeller schrieb:
>  > The success stories of Apache, Linux, MySQL, and
>  > so on would have been impossible without
commercial use rights.
> 
> Sure. A Commercial or Non-Derivative license would
definitely have been 
> wrong for these software packages.
> On the other hands, there are numerous less well-known
software packages 
> that would have been more clearly labelled as
"this is not Open Source 
> but you can use it anyway" if cc.org offered those
other licenses.
> 
> > If you want to create a new fringe movement, I
don't think it is the
> > role of CC to support that.
> 
> No.
> The GPL looks like good legal work, but it doesn't
really fit the 
> licensing model of cc.org,

http://c
reativecommons.org/licenses/GPL/2.0/

> and I'm curious why there's such a peculiar 
> exception. Software is special, but it's not so special
that it warrants 
> such a massive exception as having just a single
license that uses 
> different language, different legal concepts, etc.

Path dependency.  A priori software may not be that
special.
Historically, it is.

Source-unavailable freeware, source-available payware,
shareware, etc.
have been around for decades.  That no commonly applied
licenses for
these have developed is a huge warning sign.

Please ignore this sign and develop and evangelize such
licenses.  When
you've achieved massive adoption we could talk about a CC
wrapper for
your licenses like we've done with the GPL.  But I recommend
first
discussing with people who have thought about these issues
deeply.  Join
http://www.crynwr.com/fsb/


-- 
  
http://wiki.creativecommons.org/User:Mike_Linksvayer

_______________________________________________
cc-licenses mailing list
cc-licenseslists.ibiblio.org
http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-licenses

On Tuesday 24 April 2007 02:49 am, Björn Terelius wrote:
> I agree with Joachim Durchholz, it would be great if
the Creative
> Commons made adaptations for software. I can't
understand why some of
> you guys dislike the idea so much. 

Possibly there are some of us who would be happy to see the
day when only BY 
and BY-SA remain as viable CC licenses, the others having
faded away into 
obscurity due to non-use.

> After all, why should it be possible 
> for an artist to release their creations as ND but not
possible for a
> programmer based on some loosely defined "ethical
principle" of open
> source. 

Are you calling for CC to drop ND? ~ sorry,
just a joke.

> The Creative Commons are not the same as FSF and does
not have 
> to share the FSFs opinions. I think that the programmer
should have the
> freedom to choose the license he sees fit for his
project, even if it
> isn't open source. That a ND licence for software would
"cause needless
> division, friction and incompatibility" is simply
not true. The
> incompatibility already exists. Just search the net for
"freeware" and
> you will find thousands of  gratis but non-free
programs.
> www.freewarehome.com alone claim to have more than 4500
programs for
> download, each probably with its own license.

Even though ND isn't meant for software, if you are
determined to go non-Free, 
would ND not work for software if you intend ND?
>
> Regards
> Bjorn Terelius

all the best,

drew
>
> Erik Moeller skrev:
> > On 4/23/07, Joachim Durchholz <jodurchholz.org> wrote:
> >> However, they aren't applicable to all
situations. The GPL is
> >> Attribution/Derivative/Share-Alike, the LGPL
is Attribution/Derivative.
> >> There's no option for Noncommercial or
No-Derivative.
> >>
> >> I think cc.org could help here.
> >
> > If by "help" you mean "cause
needless division, friction and
> > incompatibility", then yes . Even if
one buys into the notion that
> > there are different "sharing cultures"
around culture as a whole, the
> > open source/free software movement has clearly
converged on a high
> > standard of freedom. The success stories of
Apache, Linux, MySQL, and
> > so on would have been impossible without
commercial use rights. If you
> > want to create a new fringe movement, I don't
think it is the role of
> > CC to support that.
>
> _______________________________________________
> cc-licenses mailing list
> cc-licenseslists.ibiblio.org
> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-licenses

-- 
(da idea man)
_______________________________________________
cc-licenses mailing list
cc-licenseslists.ibiblio.org
http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-licenses

Quoting Javier Candeira <javiercandeira.com>:

> Rob Myers wrote:
>> It shouldn't. ND should be abolished and replaced
with a Fair Use guarantee.
>
> The more restrictive by-nc-nd licenses, in their many
international forms,
> have the effect of "harmonising" a wider form
of "fair use" or "fair
> dealing" across all jurisdictions that have their
own Creative   
> Commons licenses.

Yes that's a fair comment. I live in a "Fair
Dealing" jurisdiction and  
I know of at least one publication here that uses NC to
ensure that  
its readers can make greater use of the work than they would
be able  
to otherwise.

My apologies to NC-ND. 

- Rob.

_______________________________________________
cc-licenses mailing list
cc-licenseslists.ibiblio.org
http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-licenses

On Tuesday 24 April 2007 03:53 am, Björn Terelius wrote:
>
> As for the usefulness of an ND license for software,
consider a FPS-game
> like counter-strike or whatever. If the source was
distributed publicly
> it would be easy to modify the client to cheat. Anybody
with any
> programming experience could create a client that
automatically aim for
> the head or something. On the other hand is is
extremely difficult to do
> this without source if it means reverse engineering the
project.

Well, it may not be the exact situation you propose, but we
may have decent 
experimental results soon:


http://secondlife.com/developers/opensource/licenses
>
> Here's another point. Everybody who has ever used a
free, open source
> program, please raise your hands. (Everybody raises
their hands) Ok now
> everybody who has ever modified an open source program,
raise your
> hands. (Very few does) The point is that in reality,
very few people use
> the rights of modification and commercial distribution.


You left out an important question and drew too strong a
conclusion.

Everyone who has ever used more than one distribution or
everyone who has ever 
used any distribution other than Yggdrasil raise your hand.
(A whole bunch of 
hands go up.) You make use of the right of commercial
distribution when you 
choose to get your wares from a different party that better
suits your needs, 
not just when you distribute commercially yourself. It gets
you out of vendor 
lock in.
>
> I did not quite understand your response to the fact
that freeware
> exists. There are many good freeware projects and they
don't use any
> standardized license, because there is none. 

I think that's his point. Get them to agree on one and then
ask CC to bless 
it.

When people who like Free Software see the GPL, BSD, MIT,
etc, they see the 
one they like as good for their use and use it. Why haven't
the non-Free 
freeware guys managed to come up with on in all these
years?


> Hence the incompatibility 
> exists. Adding a standardized license would make the
freeware more
> useful, and could possibly persuade the developers to
release it as a
> free project later.

So, what more do you need than ND gives you?
>
> -Bjorn Terelius

all the best,

drew
>
> Rob Myers wrote:
> > Björn Terelius wrote:
> >> I agree with Joachim Durchholz, it would be
great if the Creative
> >> Commons made adaptations for software. I can't
understand why some of
> >> you guys dislike the idea so much.
> >
> > It's not a dislike. It's a considered position
based on the history of
> > Free Software.
> >
> >> After all, why should it be possible
> >> for an artist to release their creations as
ND
> >
> > It shouldn't. ND should be abolished and replaced
with a Fair Use
> > guarantee.
> >
> >> but not possible for a
> >> programmer based on some loosely defined
"ethical principle" of open
> >> source.
> >
> > The OSI have a written definition of what they
think Open Source is. If
> > you have an alternative definition in mind you
will need to give it, as
> > otherwise people will assume you mean the standard
one.
> >
> > Software is a tool, it is a machine. To ensure
that you can use it you
> > need to be able to modify it (otherwise bit-rot
sets in). You cannot do
> > this (usefully) without the source and the ability
to modify and
> > recompile it. ND is simply worthless for
software.
> >
> > The same is not true of art. You can make the case
that freedom of
> > speech ends up requiring almost identical freedoms
to software, but you
> > get there by a different route.
> >
> >> The Creative Commons are not the same as FSF
and does not have
> >> to share the FSFs opinions. I think that the
programmer should have the
> >> freedom to choose the license he sees fit for
his project, even if it
> >> isn't open source.
> >
> > They have. But it is not CC's responsibility to
help them reproduce
> > historical mistakes that nobody else wants to
touch with a bargepole.
> >
> >> That a ND licence for software would
"cause needless
> >> division, friction and incompatibility"
is simply not true.
> >
> > It is entirely true. It creates software that
cannot be modified to be
> > used, that cannot be combined with other software,
and that does not
> > work with other licenses. It is a white elephant
license.
> >
> > It won't make its users any extra money and it
won't protect their
> > reputation.
> >
> >> The
> >> incompatibility already exists. Just search
the net for "freeware" and
> >> you will find thousands of  gratis but
non-free programs.
> >> www.freewarehome.com alone claim to have more
than 4500 programs for
> >> download, each probably with its own license.
> >
> > I suggest that people who think they want an ND
license just use
> > Microsoft's Reference License (ms-rl). Microsoft
are programmers and
> > have written this license to reflect their needs.
So if you have the
> > same needs as Microsoft, this is the license for
you.
> >
> > - Rob.
> > _______________________________________________
> > cc-licenses mailing list
> > cc-licenseslists.ibiblio.org
> > http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-licenses
>
> _______________________________________________
> cc-licenses mailing list
> cc-licenseslists.ibiblio.org
> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-licenses

-- 
(da idea man)
_______________________________________________
cc-licenses mailing list
cc-licenseslists.ibiblio.org
http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-licenses