On 18 February 2011 13:41, Teofilo
<teofilowiki(a)gmail.com> wrote:
Having a choice of possible licenses is a
richness. Because specific
licenses might be more suitable to some specific needs than other
licenses. Because they don't offer the same sort of protection in a
variety of circumstances. Destroying licenses looks as bad as
destroying biological species. Biodiversity is needed.
No, I think you're dead wrong there. Gratuitous licence proliferation
is bad because it reduces interoperability and hence reusability. This
has been observed repeatedly in the world of open source software; for
you to claim that a proliferation of incompatible licences is a good
thing in the world of free content, you would need to supply more than
the mere assertions you provide here. Anything more than a continuum
of PD <-> CC-by (equiv) <-> CC-by-sa needs *very good* justification.
Steering people to one of those three by preferences is absolutely the
right thing to do as it maximises reusability.
I am talking about biodiversity. You are talking like Monsanto who
wants all the farmers on earth to use the same seeds.