Hi
Jacqueline McNally wrote:
To: [email protected] CC: Brendan
Brendan, I posted to this list wrt your article about licensing and open
content.
Jeffrey G. Causey, CPA wrote:
On Wednesday 05 July 2006 22:49, Jacqueline McNally wrote:
[snip]
Isn't this really the same debate that occurs between proponents of
GPL licenses vs. BSD licenses? At least as far as the NC restriction
for the CCL.
The non commercial restriction would prevent its inclusion in a BSD licensed product as much as in a GPL licensed one, because each of these licences gives recipients the right to use and reproduce the product for commercial purposes - something expressly prohibited by the nc licence.
It is categorically *not* a question of philosophy, the BSD and GPL (and by definition all open source licences) are directly (and irreconcilably) inconsistent with a CC *-NC licence.
I would have liked to have seen Mr. Scott expand upon his contention
that the CCL BY and SA restrictions of the CCL render them open source
"incompatible". His article seems to be intended to throw FUD upon
the term "open content" more than anything else given the vagueness of
his arguments.
I didn't say they definitely were, I said they might be. I think it is pretty clear that (for example) BY-SA will be incompatible with the GPL. Whether this is true for all open source licences - I don't know because I haven't thought about it deeply enough. However, CC licences specifically map out what a person can do. If those rights don't coincide closely with the relevant open source licence, then they will (probably) be "incompatible" because one purports to permit an end user to do something which the other doesn't.
"incompatible". His article seems to be intended to throw FUD upon
I don't like the term "open content". But my main point is that people should
understand that it doesn't mean what they think it means. My article is intended to
convey this one simple point:
Knowing that something is "open content", or even "Creative Commons" does not
assist in determining whether the content can be used in an open source project.
the term "open content" more than anything else given the vagueness of
his arguments.
Vagueness only relates to the BY/BY-SA incompatibility. Given that I didn't (and still don't) know the answer, I was obliged to be vague. I did voice my suspicion and did it in a qualified way. My suspicion it remains. The article had a very short word limit as well btw.
Cheers
Brendan
Hello Jeffrey
I feel that Brendan is anything but vague, but perhaps I think this
because I have read other articles on this and his pov in other forums.
I have cc'd Brendan so that he may answer himself.
Regards
Jacqueline
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
