[PD] a little ot: creative commons

[august]

> > Interestingly some other people put it into words:
> > http://www.metamute.org/?q=en/Freedoms-Standard-Advanced
> > http://www.fsf.org/blogs/rms/entry-20050920.html
> 
> The problem is that we tend to believe that CC licenses are either all good 
> or all bad. A licence is not a trademark. CC is not a license, its an 
> experimental legal framework to challenge the traditional conception of 
> copyright. The GPL is endorsed by CC, but the FSF is pissed off because the 
> CC is not an ideological movement, it's a place where lawyers and the 
> general public can have some fun, together. The CC initiative is fine, as 
> long as we take the time to understand their (easy) licenses.


I think a greater problem is that we tend to think of GPL and CC as
being similar things, when in fact they are quite different.  

But, I'm not so sure the CC is not an ideological movement.  It's just
that it's not as totalitarian as the FLOSS/GPL movement.

CC addresses the production of culture, the GPL address
the production of code.   They are two very different intentions, two
very different "things".

And, despite being a FLOSS advocate and avid FLOSS programmer since many years, 
I take particular offense to this article:

	http://www.metamute.org/?q=en/Freedoms-Standard-Advanced

Mako Hill only wishes to extend the naive tautology of the word "freedom", and
knock CC for not having an ideology that is as simple and total as the GPL.

best -august.