http://www.linuxp2p.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=10771
LinuxP2P:In the last couple of years, independent media and entertainment seems has grown immensely. Just last week, CreativeCommons.org passed the 200000 mp3s indexed milestone. Most independent music, movies etc., use Creative Commons licensing. A lot of the independent artwork has been spread through P2P (Using legal independent artistry sites such as Jamendo.com and ccMixter.org, as well as manually by the artists themselves.). Apart from the obvious, which is that the GPL is written to cover software, what differences are there between generic CC licensing and the GPL? RMS: I have already explained the patent problem of MP3 format. As your question illustrates, people have a tendency to disregard the differences between the various Creative Commons licenses, lumping them together as a single thing. That is as mixed-up as supposing San Francisco and Death Valley have similar weather because they're both in California. Some Creative Commons licenses are free licenses; most permit at least noncommercial verbatim copying. But some, such as the Sampling Licenses and Developing Countries Licenses, don't even permit that, which makes them unacceptable to use for any kind of work. All these licenses have in common is a label, but people regularly mistake that common label for something substantial. I no longer endorse Creative Commons. I cannot endorse Creative Commons as a whole, because some of its licenses are unacceptable. It would be self-delusion to try to endorse just some of the Creative Commons licenses, because people lump them together; they will misconstrue any endorsement of some as a blanket endorsement of all. I therefore find myself constrained to reject Creative Commons entirely. _______________________________________________ gNewSense-users mailing list [email protected] http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnewsense-users
