"Daniel Mayer" maveric149@yahoo.com schrieb:
--- 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.
It's NOT free, you say? So, I may not use it freely? You DO have a strange definition of 'free'.
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?
By restricting how it may be used. What other way could there be to decrease freedom?
Andre Engels