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

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.