Daniel Mayer (maveric149) wrote:
Andre Engels wrote:
>It's [a CC-by document] NOT free, you say? So,
I may not use it freely?
>You DO have a strange definition of 'free'.
Not libre, which in this context means it is only half
Yes, you can *use* it freely, but the content itself is not free.
Here, mav is using the word "free" in a nonstandard sense
(which Andre might fairly call a "strange definition").
According to most people that use the term, like the FSF and Debian,
a CC-by document, a BSD-licensed document, and a PD document are all free.
In the absence of a copyleft, however, derivative works may become non-free.
(The original work, however, will ''always'' be free.)
>By restricting how it may be used. What other way
could there be to decrease
Those restrictions are designed to ensure the freedom
of the content, meaning
it can not be controlled.
And thus, arguably, the restrictions are justified for the cause of freedom.
Nevertheless, they remain restrictions on freedom.
Also, you don't need a copyleft to keep "it" -- the original document --
from being controlled. A PD document is always PD, a CC-by document
is (assuming that the original licensor indeed had the right to license it)
always CC-by, and so on. Only derivative works may be controlled.
Thus for example, the PD Grimm fairy tale Schneewittchen remains free,
even though the Disney movie Snow White (a derived work) is not free.
I believe that mav, Andre, and I all have slightly different opinions
about what is important in regards to freedom and how to safeguard it.
But it's very difficult to discuss these things with imprecise language.
That's why Richard Stallman makes such a big deal out of terminology,
even to the point that he annoys people. I use RMS's terminology,
even though I disagree with him on some points as well.