Re: Unbundling the GPL

Rob Myers wants to abolish the ND option of all CC licenses,
but I don't 
think he speaks for the entire community. Does the community
wish to 
abolish the standard CC ND lisence? If so, then why was it
ever created? 
Of course I can understand that those who dislike ND doesn't
want to 
participate in creating an ND license for software, but the
fact 
remains: CC ND exists. Why should CC endorse this for art
bun not software.

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.

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.
Someone will 
remark that for many projects would not have become as good
without the 
GPL or free licenses. This may be true in many cases, and I
think that 
everybody should choose the best software available for
their need. On 
the other hand, the FSF thinks everybody should use free
software, even 
if there are better non free programs. Yet, a lot of gratis
but non-free 
programs exist. See below.

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. 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.

-Bjorn Terelius


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

Björn Terelius schrieb:
> 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.

Good example.

OTOH, releasing the source at least for inspection might
still be a 
requirement, if only to check that it isn't malware.
Fortunately, that's an issue for another day 

> 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.

The point is that you can pay or otherwise persuade somebody
to do the 
modifications for you. That's exactly how most FOSS software
has grown, 
so almost everybody has used software that exists because
the 
modification right exists.

So this point doesn't stand up.

 > Someone will
> remark that for many projects would not have become as
good without the 
> GPL or free licenses. This may be true in many cases,
and I think that 
> everybody should choose the best software available for
their need. On 
> the other hand, the FSF thinks everybody should use
free software, even 
> if there are better non free programs.

Indeed, and I think they're overstating their case here.
Though it's probably necessary to overstate to get heard at
all - I 
think the FSF is doing the public an immense service, even
though I 
don't buy all of their arguments.

 > Yet, a lot of gratis but non-free programs exist. See
below.
> 
> 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. 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.

That's exactly the point I've been trying to make. Thanks.

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

A few thoughts and a CC history question ;)

The practical aspect
- there is a good reason why we have not debated that
extensively the 
standardization of ND-type licences for software whereas the
discussions 
regarding SA-type licences (for software, content or both)
constantly appear 
on this mailing list since its inception: ND-type licences
do not involve 
any mixing of material and hence standardization is not
really necessary for 
increasing the horizon of the relevant material. In other
words the 
interoperability issue does not come into play.
- A standardized ND-type licence for software would
nevertheless be useful 
for other reasons and hence CC may be interested in
supporting such a 
scheme. Indicatively, such a standardized licence would
allow greater 
clarity in the licensing terms regarding the use of the
software by the End 
User and promote a minimum standard of good licensing
practices for 
freeware.
- I am not sure a vendor would move from freeware to free
software as a 
result of her experience with a standardized ND-type
licence. It is more 
likely she is going to do it only if it fits her business
model. Having said 
that, it would potentially push towards a clearer expression
of licensing 
terms and in that sense it could be a positive development.

The political aspect:
- CC already has a dubious reputation regarding its
relationship with 
principles of free as in free software and a rather good
link with free as 
in free choice. If we go for yet another non-free
software-like licence 
(irrespective of how useful it may be), we need to assess
the political 
impact of such an initiative. Especially if this is to be
done in the realms 
of software which is the FSF/Debian home court...

...and the CC history question:
-How did we end up with the specific original Licence
Elements? Could 
someone from CC let us know why THESE licence elements were
deemed as 
expressing the needs of specific creative communities? for
instance 
cc-sampling was the result of Negativland and Gilberto Gil.
What about the 
basic licences?

thnx
pRo

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Björn Terelius" <bjorn.tereliusgmail.com>
To: "Discussion on the Creative Commons license
drafts" 
<cc-licenseslists.ibiblio.org>
Sent: Tuesday, April 24, 2007 10:53 AM
Subject: Re: [cc-licenses] Unbundling the GPL


Rob Myers wants to abolish the ND option of all CC licenses,
but I don't
think he speaks for the entire community. Does the community
wish to
abolish the standard CC ND lisence? If so, then why was it
ever created?
Of course I can understand that those who dislike ND doesn't
want to
participate in creating an ND license for software, but the
fact
remains: CC ND exists. Why should CC endorse this for art
bun not software.

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.

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.
Someone will
remark that for many projects would not have become as good
without the
GPL or free licenses. This may be true in many cases, and I
think that
everybody should choose the best software available for
their need. On
the other hand, the FSF thinks everybody should use free
software, even
if there are better non free programs. Yet, a lot of gratis
but non-free
programs exist. See below.

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. 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.

-Bjorn Terelius


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 


***** Email confidentiality notice *****
This message is private and confidential. If you have
received this message in error, please notify us and remove
it from your system.
 
The bond School of Economics and Political Science (the
School) is a company limited by guarantee, registered in
England and Wales, under registered number 00070527, and
having its registered office at 10th Floor, Tower One,
Houghton Street, bond WC2A 2AE.
 
The inclusion of this information does not of itself make
this email a business document of the School and, to the
maximum extent permitted by law, the School accepts no
liability for the content and opinions in any non-business
emails.
_______________________________________________
cc-licenses mailing list
cc-licenseslists.ibiblio.org
http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-licenses