--- Toby Bartels <toby+wikipedia(a)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/