Re: Unbundling the GPL

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. 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. 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.

Regards
Bjorn Terelius

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

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