On 2/9/06, Gerard Meijssen <gerard.meijssen(a)gmail.com> wrote:
David Gerard wrote:
Hoi,
You misrepresent what is said in the article. RMS does not say anything
about /specific /licenses. He says something about "Creative Commons"
being seen as one license. As many people do not appreciate the
difference between the different CC licenses he prefers to not use them
all. Given his principled point of view and him championing his license,
that is understandable and reasonable.
When you imply that not favouring Creative Commons licenses for a well
reasoned argument means that you cannot think about how a /specific
/Creative Commons license can be aligned with the GFDL is not giving RMS
the credit that is his due. You are aware that RMS is not doing things
on his own, some of the best minds in the business are part of a team
that he represents.
And in this case RMS is very much dead on target...
Consider for a moment the FreeSounds
(
http://freesound.iua.upf.edu/legal.php) project which believes it's
building something of commons style repository of audio samples which
are free to use... The solicit input from the world.. It's really
great. They advertise that the content is creative commons licensed
loudly.
Except... it's Sampling+ licensed. The license grant of sampling+ is
in many regards less free than what historic interpretation of fair
use would allow in the US. It's impossible to make Free content (in
the GFDL or CC-BY-SA sense) which uses sampling+ content without
breaking the sampling+ license.
Most of the work on the site is just little tidbits gathered up by
people, most of the samples alone have no commercial value. Had they
instead required the samples to be 'dual PD / X11' licensed, they
would have very few less.
The resulting confusion caused by CC's mix of vastly different
licenses has cause a project which had the potential to increase the
free content out there to actually decrease it.