On Jun 15, 2006, at 1:35 PM, padawan12@obiwannabe.co.uk wrote:
CC addresses the production of culture, the GPL address the production of code. They are two very different intentions, two very different "things".
I'm sure that makes a great debate. I'm not sure they are so
different or if you can ever draw a line between data and code in a
truly meaningful way. Pour me te differences in the licences are
about simplicity and language, CC being something artists can grok
right away.I'm quite happy that CC works for me for the things I want it to,
granting rights for music and letting me decide what can be remixed
or merely copied and what it can be used for. If you write code or
patches that fall into what you believe is a grey area you're free
to choose mix and match licences as you wish, GPL or BSD for code
if appropriate, CC non -erivative or CC sharealike. At the end of
te day never be afraid to write your own licence parts simply
stating your wishes, on a per file basis if you really need to, or
pulling bits from licences or supplementing them with your own
stuff. Just think it through, be clear and honest about what you
want to grant or restrict and try to make life as simple as
possible for the end user or else they will be put off using your
work. Andy
Writing your own licenses makes enforcement even more expensive that
enforcing a CC license since there wouldn't be any precedents or body
of knowledge pertaining to that license.
It comes down to this: if someone with a lot more money that you
wants to violate your CC license, they probably can and will without
much hassle to them. The GNU GPL is a different story, nobody has
even tried to fight the GNU GPL, even large corporations because they
would have no case against Eben Moglen in court.
Even worse, CC licenses add a cost to the small people that most
people are trying to encourage. If someone is just starting out and
they want to sample a song, they have to spend a fair amount of
effort figuring out all the CC clauses and what they allow someone to
do. This is non-trivial, especially since there are so many possible
clauses. This is a real cost that mostly affects the small guy.
With the GNU GPL, its dead simple: do whatever you want with it as
long as you distribute any changes or additions also. That's why I
have been thinking about releasing everything I do, music, sound
installations, whatever, under the GNU GPL.
.hc
And, despite being a FLOSS advocate and avid FLOSS programmer
since many years, I take particular offense to this article:http://www.metamute.org/?q=en/Freedoms-Standard-Advanced
Mako Hill only wishes to extend the naive tautology of the word
"freedom", and knock CC for not having an ideology that is as simple and total as
the GPL.best -august.
PD-list@iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
PD-list@iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> http://lists.puredata.info/ listinfo/pd-list
If you are not part of the solution, you are part of the
problem. - Eldridge Cleaver