4 ms·

I think we might be talking past each other. My argument is simple. If a development gets us closer to the Four Essential Freedoms of Free Software, it's good.

I think we might be talking past each other. My argument is simple. If a development gets us closer to the Four Essential Freedoms of Free Software, it's good. If it gets us further, it's bad. I believe your counter-argument is "okay, but NC licenses don't really violate Freedom 0, because you are free to run it as long as you pay the author"? Or like, "Freedom 0 is dumb anyway", which then breaks the premises and we can't really discuss much after that. Therefore, I will only reply to the former. My counter would be "maybe, but in that case you need compulsory licensing, as it currently is, the original author can refuse to let you exercise your Freedom 0 no matter how much money you offer, and therefore it is violated".

LordDragonfang 3y ago
>My argument is simple. If a development gets us closer to the Four Essential Freedoms of Free Software, it's good. If it gets us further, it's bad. Well, one of my points is that's a different argument entirely from the one in either the parent or the GP, which is part of what bothers me. This is the first fully articulated, coherent argument in this thread. That said, my actual counterargument (which I think should be clear from all of my previous responses) is "well, if that's your argument, then CC-NC is clearly good!". As I've said from the beginning CC-NC is a much more lenient licence than almost any other. It sets a work to be completely free by three measures, and mostly free by the fourth. By any reasonable definition, it brings a work "closer to the four essential freedoms", your stated goal. It only stops a little short of the goal. The only world in which this is not true is the you assume that any CC-* license would otherwise be GPL-like. But that's a totally specious assumption - for one thing the default in legal society is full copyright. And most artists wouldn't feel comfortable fully releasing their work for Disney to profit off of while they try and survive off of cup ramen. A world in which CC-NC does not exist is a world that, on the net, I'd assert would be much less free. This isn't a black-and-white world where you can claim in good faith that "any not-fully free work is just as bad as being fully copyrighted" - and you can't condemn CC-NC unless you're willing to claim that those works are better off not free at all, which is a betrayal of the principles you claim to hold.
- CaptainFever 3y ago
  Okay yeah that makes sense, I agree with you there. Creative Commons has this to say: > Why does CC support “non-free” licenses at all? Isn’t that against its mission? > CC hopes to promote a more open culture than “all rights reserved”. Some creators want to allow very broad use of their works. Some wish to allow some uses but restrict others. We believe that all levels of openness are worth encouraging and supporting as an alternative to “all rights reserved.” While we hope that some creators will use the non-free licenses as a stepping stone to greater openness in the future, CC encourages sharing under any of its licenses as a way to create a more open culture. Source: https://creativecommons.org/public-domain/freeworks/ https://creativecommons.org/public-domain/freeworks/ The only thing that I ask is that certain terms (e.g. Free Cultural Works, Open Source, Libre Software) retain their meaning so there's a clear goal to work towards. One thing that annoys me, for example, is companies releasing software or weights under a non-libre license but trying to pass it off as libre anyway. That's about it x3 (Libre = Free as in freedom in this case, to ease confusion) Though to be fair GP does say "aside from not sharing it". I interpreted this as "aside from not giving it a CC license". I realise it could be interpreted as "aside from not publishing it" instead. So there might be confusion there.

LordDragonfang 3y ago

>My argument is simple. If a development gets us closer to the Four Essential Freedoms of Free Software, it's good. If it gets us further, it's bad. Well, one of my points is that's a different argument entirely from the one in either the parent or the GP, which is part of what bothers me. This is the first fully articulated, coherent argument in this thread. That said, my actual counterargument (which I think should be clear from all of my previous responses) is "well, if that's your argument, then CC-NC is clearly good!". As I've said from the beginning CC-NC is a much more lenient licence than almost any other. It sets a work to be completely free by three measures, and mostly free by the fourth. By any reasonable definition, it brings a work "closer to the four essential freedoms", your stated goal. It only stops a little short of the goal. The only world in which this is not true is the you assume that any CC-* license would otherwise be GPL-like. But that's a totally specious assumption - for one thing the default in legal society is full copyright. And most artists wouldn't feel comfortable fully releasing their work for Disney to profit off of while they try and survive off of cup ramen. A world in which CC-NC does not exist is a world that, on the net, I'd assert would be much less free. This isn't a black-and-white world where you can claim in good faith that "any not-fully free work is just as bad as being fully copyrighted" - and you can't condemn CC-NC unless you're willing to claim that those works are better off not free at all, which is a betrayal of the principles you claim to hold.

CaptainFever 3y ago
Okay yeah that makes sense, I agree with you there. Creative Commons has this to say: > Why does CC support “non-free” licenses at all? Isn’t that against its mission? > CC hopes to promote a more open culture than “all rights reserved”. Some creators want to allow very broad use of their works. Some wish to allow some uses but restrict others. We believe that all levels of openness are worth encouraging and supporting as an alternative to “all rights reserved.” While we hope that some creators will use the non-free licenses as a stepping stone to greater openness in the future, CC encourages sharing under any of its licenses as a way to create a more open culture. Source: https://creativecommons.org/public-domain/freeworks/ https://creativecommons.org/public-domain/freeworks/ The only thing that I ask is that certain terms (e.g. Free Cultural Works, Open Source, Libre Software) retain their meaning so there's a clear goal to work towards. One thing that annoys me, for example, is companies releasing software or weights under a non-libre license but trying to pass it off as libre anyway. That's about it x3 (Libre = Free as in freedom in this case, to ease confusion) Though to be fair GP does say "aside from not sharing it". I interpreted this as "aside from not giving it a CC license". I realise it could be interpreted as "aside from not publishing it" instead. So there might be confusion there.