--- Toby Bartels toby+wikipedia@math.ucr.edu wrote:
Mav's position, as he is stating it, is more extreme (and simply wrong IMO), since he is claiming (I believe) that a noncopyleft licence like CC-sa is not free to begin with. Still, mav does have a point, as I said here:
If CC-sa = Creative Commons Attribution Share-alike license, then I think you are confused (or at least made a typo). The CC by-sa is in fact more libre/copyleft than the GNU FDL since it does not have provisions for invariant sections. Thus its copyleft status is more permanent. The CC-by license is merely gratis with the only real requirement being attribution.
There are ''reasons'' for each of the restrictions, including reasons that the restrictions may increase freedom overall.
[I've corrected a typographical error in the original here.]
So mav can reasonably argue (along with the FSF) that a copyleft licence increases freedom overall, because it enforces freedom for derivative works. But it does not increase the freedom of the ''original'' document -- as even the FSF would agree -- and could only decrease ''that'' freedom. (And that was your point, Andre, which I agree with.)
Decrease that freedom? How when anything from a derivative work can be reincorporated back into the original? In what way does that decrease the freedom of the original document?
-- Daniel Mayer (aka mav)
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Friends. Fun. Try the all-new Yahoo! Messenger. http://messenger.yahoo.com/