[Foundation-l] Licenses' biodiversity : my big disagreement with the Wikimedia usability initiative's software specifications

[Teofilo]

2011/2/20 David Gerard <dgerard at gmail.com>:
> On 20 February 2011 16:18, Teofilo <teofilowiki at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> I presume that the people who created
>> http://creativecommons.org/choose/ know what they are doing and that
>> their view on licensing does make sense, to some extent.
>
>
> You also presume that CC by-sa is a non-free licence.
>
> Further, you still haven't explained your notion that licence
> proliferation is good for free content despite having already been bad
> for free software. I'm sure you'll actually answer eventually.

Software is a specific sector of content creation. Perhaps it is
possible to gather software creators around a table, possibly with a
few lawyers nearby, and ask them to create the single ultimate license
that will fit all the needs of all software creators everywhere in the
world and forever.

But on Wikimedia Commons we are not dealing with a specific sector. We
are receiving a variety of contents from different creative worlds. By
the same token that you do not use the same legal code for a wedding
contract and for a car purchase, I am not sure if the same contract
can be used for a bronze statue and a for a song. I don't think you
may address the mold issue for the statue exactly the same way as the
musical score issue for the song.

I think it would be a mistake to narrow on a single license, while
there is still no good license for videos. No license at present
ensures that the distributors will provide a download link together
with the video, whenever they distribute it.