"Daniel Mayer" <maveric149(a)yahoo.com> schrieb:
--- 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.
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