For a second I got excited that you were talking about John Resig, the guy who invented JQuery. There is an open source figure I respect.

But then I was disappointed, but mainly for my own misdirection. hehe.

Hara kiri here I’s come…

But only on Lessig’s terms. Which means I can come up with an entirely contradictory solution to a nonexistent problem. How can I put this?

Fish.

Adam Ant King says we are aghast of Lawrence Lessig’s book “Free Culture”.

See comment inside post

Lawrence Lessig is nothing but a wanna be communist who is pissed off that his beloved Eastern Bloc paradise failed miserably and no sane person in the world wishes to take up its cause and force us all to toe his line.

The really funny thing about Lessig? His uber creation “Creative Commons” does nothing more or less than what copyright laws already do: that is, allow content creators to decide how and when content is distributed and under what previliges. Lessig is an intellectual fraud, and a fool.

And as for Adam, please don’t denigrate the term homunculus by comparing the two. Adam doesn’t even rate that high, and besides, ancient philosophers had good (they thought) reasons to believe that sperm cells resembled little humans that needed a womb to grow in (alas to the guy who pulled out and dumped his “seed” on the ground as it might sprout a golem if the ground had been bloodied before).

Adam is closer to a tape worm that you can’t purge unless you go to the doctor and get some meds to flush him out (this also applies to his alter-ego Need2PeeFree).

Hmm,

DigtalAthiest and his typical LinuxIsCommunism™.

DrLoser and his typical AnythingIDisagreeWithIsLogicallyImpossible™.

Stay classy, guys.

Holy ship… someone let a tapeworm loose in here?

And I thought I was “banned” from Linux Evangelism…

We, Adam, either you want us to read the thing or you don’t. Make up your mind.

When I read something, I like to reserve the right to disagree. Unlike you, I don’t go in for Blind Faith.

And unlike you, I actually read things.

Oh, the Creative Commons guy. I always wanted to read his Free Culture book, but never had the time for it. I’ll bump it up my reading queue and maybe I’ll read it in a month or so.

——
@DigitalAtheist
“His uber creation “Creative Commons” does nothing more or less than what copyright laws already do”

Yes, that’s the point: making using the current law easier for non-lawyers.

Here’s an example: if an artist wants people to use his work however they want, but not commercially, he can either:
1- Write his own copyright license. He’s not a lawyer, so his license might be legally-inaccurate (i.e. doesn’t have the correct legalese), and people who want to use his work will probably be discouraged from doing so.
2- Use CC-BY-NC¹. It has been read by several lawyers, most people understand it, and people who use his work know exactly what they’re getting.

The same applies for other Creative Commons licenses.

[1] http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/

@IMGX64:

“Yes, that’s the point: making using the current law easier for non-lawyers.”

How do you deduce that? Quote the clause, please.

As I pointed out, above, there are unintended consequences in all this.

Not only do I have to get a Microsoft-approved lawyer to sign off on [insert random silly pretentious license here], but that lawyer in turn has to “consult his OSS specialist,” it says here.

Now, what with billion dollar lawsuits and all, Microsoft might well be a special case. But I’ve worked in quite ordinary environments where this crap bites you in the bum for no good reason.

I agree with the prior comment. “Creative Commons” is nothing other than “copyright” under a silly name. It’s what people do with it that matters; not the verbiage.

And the verbiage is where lawyers come in. Masses and masses of lawyers. They love this stuff.

DO NOT FEED THE LAWYERS!

However, if you insist on doing it, I’d be interested in hearing an alternative and intelligent viewpoint on La Lessig’s masterpiece.

I’m not going to argue about how well-understood or how easy-to-understand CC licenses are. Understanding is subjective, and one man’s War and Peace is another man’s Jack and Jill.

However, once you understand a license, whether by carefully reading it, or by consulting your lawyers, their consultants and the consultants’ consultants, you automatically understand the license of all the works available under that license, including works not even created yet. In the long term, this would create less work for lawyers.

Compare with the alternative, if you want to use something you didn’t create (and isn’t in the public domain), you need a license anyway, and you need to consult the lawyers for every single work.

This also applies to software licenses like GPL and BSD. If your lawyers decide that the GPL is inappropriate for your company, you can automatically dismiss all GPL software without breaking a sweat or consulting the lawyers again.

I wonder why no such templated licenses exist outside the, err, Free Culture/Software/whatever world. For example, instead of having different EULAs for every single program, there could be a common EULA with the standard boilerplate (we offer no warranty/you have a license, you don’t own the software/you’re not allowed to modify or reverse-engineer/etc), and then proprietary software developers can use it and optionally add whatever extra clauses they want. Now that would definitely make things easier for everyone (unless you have a different opinion).

CC: the “-tards” version of Copyright.

“However, once you understand a license, whether by carefully reading it, or by consulting your lawyers, their consultants and the consultants’ consultants, you automatically understand the license of all the works available under that license, including works not even created yet. In the long term, this would create less work for lawyers.”

So you are one of those idealistic student types who has never worked a single day in a commercial environment, eh? Figured.

As some others have already pointed out, there are ramifications involved when you take a piece of copyrighted work and incorporate it to something else. These ramifications are not always the same under different circumstances, and before you realize, you have already stoop six-foot deep into a world of legal trouble. And because CC/GPL licensed materials often do not come with clear intents or purposes (unlike commercial products in general), you are often left with the burden of figuring out, out of the waffle of legalese you are given, whether you will incurring the wrath the author (in the form of a long and costly legal battle) by using the materials in certain ways.

Seriously, if you want to give something anyway, just give it away already.

*something away

++ Actual open source comes with no license or claimed authorship.

@JoeMonaco
“whether you will incurring the wrath the author (in the form of a long and costly legal battle)”

Well, can you give an example of such wrath, or a legal battle, that happened because one party understood a template license (CC, GPL, etc) one way, but the other party understood it differently?

——
@ReverseControllerSE
“Actual open source comes with no license or claimed authorship.”

No, where did you get that meaning for “actual open source” from? You’re confusing it with public domain.

Here’s a list of licenses that Microsoft accepts for open source projects: http://codeplex.codeplex.com/wikipage?title=CodePlex%20FAQ&referringTitle=Home#License

Odd, the above link doesn’t work when I click on it, but works when I copy-paste it manually. I think TMR messes up links with percent encoding.

“Seriously, if you want to give something [away], just give it away already.”

That would be a BSD-style license for software, and CC-BY for everything else.

No, that would be no license and no claims of authorship.

————————————————-

By the way, to open any information up means to go public domain.

And yes actual open source has to be licenseless, authorless (or at least no rights coming from such status) – public domain.

That’s why I wrote _actual_open source as opposed to GNU/OpenSores.

“actual open source has to be licenseless, authorless”

Repeating something doesn’t make it any more true. Nobody except you thinks that’s what open source means. Here’s the actual open source definition, whether you like it or not: http://opensource.org/docs/osd

“Well, can you give an example of such wrath, or a legal battle, that happened because one party understood a template license (CC, GPL, etc) one way, but the other party understood it differently?”

How about the FSF vs. Cisco case?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/blog/2008/dec/12/cisco-fsf-opensource

Seriously, do some homework before asking people stupid questions like that.

Ah well, the FSF strikes again. I guess you’re right, even template licenses aren’t a panacea.

But still, I think the fault here is in the GPL. It’s pretty complicated, and the FSF is pretty strict about enforcing it. That’s one of the reasons I’m not a big fan of the GPL.

I still hold my position though. Cisco’s lawyers didn’t do their homework, as evidenced by the settlement, which included hiring a lawyer who’s more knowledgeable in Free Software, A.K.A. a “Free Software Director”[1].

[1] http://www.fsf.org/news/2009-05-cisco-settlement.html

No, they assumed what everybody does: open source = free IP with no strings attached, which is what the term open source means after all.

————————————

And no, Orwellian FSF double speak, that you like so much, does not change the meaning of free or open – neither can be licensed.

And something, that is licensed, cannot be considered free or indeed open.

Language had meaning before Communism, Orwell’s fictitious totalitarian states or Stallman came along and kidnapped it for their purposes.

“No, they assumed what everybody does: open source = free IP with no strings attached, which is what the term open source means after all.”

Again, only you assume that.

And even if they did assume that, it still doesn’t make it true. All media pirates assume that downloading music/TV shows/movies doesn’t hurt anyone. Does that make their actions acceptable or legal?

——
“And no, Orwellian FSF double speak, that you like so much, does not change the meaning of free or open – neither can be licensed.

And something, that is licensed, cannot be considered free or indeed open.”

Really? Who appointed you as the gatekeeper of English words?

Microsoft gives away “Free Developer Tools”, it says so right on their website¹. Yet, when you actually download and install them, you have to accept a long End User License Agreement, which has plenty of strings attached to it.

Let me put this clearly: It’s free, and it’s licensed.

As for “open”, this is the most absurd definition of open I’ve ever come across. Open does not imply anything about restrictions. I can have an open trap for that matter!

——
“Language had meaning before Communism, Orwell’s fictitious totalitarian states or Stallman came along and kidnapped it for their purposes.”

I hate to break it to you, but languages have always changed over time. It’s neither good nor bad, and capitalism had a hand in it as much as communism.

As an aside, what’s with the red scare on TMR? I think the dark red theme is too much to handle for some people.

[1] http://www.microsoft.com/visualstudio/en-us/products/2010-editions/express

“I still hold my position though.”

Excuse me but what’s your position again?

Template licenses are a good idea.

I think I noticed a pattern that happened a handful of times already. It goes like this:

Someone: Something X is useless/redundant/harmful/so-flawed-no-one-should-use-it. In other words, good for nothing.
Me: No, it has its uses. [insert example use case of X].
Someone: No, it’s not. [insert a counter use case where X doesn’t work].
Me: Yes, but it does work elsewhere.
[Cue a long discussion spanning tens of comments about the merits of X.]

So, I propose a solution. Can we all agree that the following applies to X? (in this case, Creative Commons licenses, and other template licenses like GPL and BSD):
1- Has its uses.
2- Some people use it, and they are free to do so.
3- Some people don’t use it, and they are free to do so.
4- The fact that the people in (2) use it doesn’t hurt the people in (3).
5- As long no one if forcing anyone to do something they don’t want to do, all’s well.

So, can we agree?

(1) No
(2) Yes
(3) Yes
(4) Irrelevant
(5) You’re still missing the point

Happy? Can we agree now?

“I’m not going to argue about how well-understood or how easy-to-understand CC licenses are.”

Well, I sort of hate to leave that one hanging.

If you’re not going to argue about it, why bring it up? It’s not as if anybody else mentioned Creative Commons, except to point out that it’s functionally the same thing as copyright.

There are many ways to save the world, but stuffing it through a wonky replicator is not one of them.

Oh, clearly I am missing the point. If you’re not somehow harmed by people using it, and they’re not forcing you to use it, why are you complaining again? Just because they pretend they’re saving the world?

Also, Creative Commons isn’t an “alternative” to copyright, it’s just one form of it. By using Creative Commons, they are still using copyright.

As for its well-understood-ness, I already said it’s subjective. Clearly the people who use it understand it well, and think it makes their lives easier. If you or your company don’t understand it, then don’t use it.

“If you’re not somehow harmed by people using it, and they’re not forcing you to use it, why are you complaining again?”

Except that people end up breaking their banks due to some silly legalese waffle. No harm’s done there.

“Just because they pretend they’re saving the world?”

Yes. And breaking people’s banks.

“Also, Creative Commons isn’t an 'alternative’ to copyright, it’s just one form of it.”

No joke. What else do you think we think it is?

“As for its well-understood-ness, I already said it’s subjective.”

Like I said, if you want to give something away, just give it away. If you throws things out there with strings attached, then, in essence, you aren’t giving them away – you are just pretending to be so.

“Clearly the people who use it understand it well, and think it makes their lives easier.”

You mean those who “give away” the work, or those unsuspecting individuals unfortunate enough to have come across it?

“If you or your company don’t understand it, then don’t use it.”

Here’s something you can try to make life easy for everyone without looking like a pretentious dipstick:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_domain

Seriously, give it whirl.

“Here’s something you can try to make life easy for everyone without looking like a pretentious dipstick:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_domain

Seriously, give it whirl.”

Public domain is not suitable for anything, as there’s no such legislation in most countries. In the EU for instance you can’t simply lay down your ownership.

BSD (or if there are patents/trademarks, Apache) is absolutely free and free in all countries.

“Public domain is not suitable for anything, as there’s no such legislation in most countries. In the EU for instance you can’t simply lay down your ownership.”

Well, this should suffice, then:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:PD-self

“Except that people end up breaking their banks due to some silly legalese waffle. No harm’s done there.”

Ignorance of the law does not excuse. A few people ignore what is plainly written and get in trouble, and now Creative Commons is at fault?

By the same token, the whole copyright system is broken. Media pirates assumed that there is nothing wrong in downloading media, and they got in trouble for it, and broke their banks too.

Wait a second, the above is one of Lessig’s arguments! You’re using the same logic as him.

——
“No joke. What else do you think we think it is?”

Well, when I read this:

“His uber creation “Creative Commons” does nothing more or less than what copyright laws already do”

It didn’t seem to me to be the case. Of course it does what copyright laws already do, because it is copyright. The above sounded like complaining that Harry Potter does nothing more or less than what novels already do. It’s like complaining that border collies do nothing more or less than what dogs already do. It’s like complaining that Windows Phone does nothing more or less than what mobile operating systems already do. You get the point, I hope.

——
“Like I said, if you want to give something away, just give it away. If you throws things out there with strings attached, then, in essence, you aren’t giving them away – you are just pretending to be so.”

Yes, I agree that it’s not always giving them away for all purposes. However, for most intents and purposes, it is giving them away.

You want to listen to a CC-licensed song? You can do so all you want and no one will sue you.

You want to redistribute it as much as you want? You can do that.

You want to modify it or use it in a business? Yes, there are some restrictions you have to follow. However, you can understand the restrictions of millions of works by understanding these few simple rules.

Just like few people are interested in modifying the source code of a program, there are only few people interested in modifying media. By saying that people shouldn’t give things away without strings, you’re saying that Microsoft shouldn’t give away Visual Studio Express without the ability to modify it.

Gee, that reminds me of the arguments of some group of people you don’t like.

——
“You mean those who “give away” the work, or those unsuspecting individuals unfortunate enough to have come across it?”

I mean everyone. Especially people who can read and understand what a license says, instead of just assuming they can do whatever they want.

——
“Here’s something you can try to make life easy for everyone without looking like a pretentious dipstick:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_domain
Seriously, give it whirl.”

What if all an artist wants is credit and nothing else (and so licenses his work under CC-BY)? Is that too much to ask?

Oh, and in case you still have a problem understanding the relationship between “free”, copyright, and Creative Commons, Microsoft can help you¹:

“Just because a work is easily available on the internet or elsewhere does not mean you may use the work freely. Look for terms of use, such as Creative Commons, that explain how works you find on the Internet may be used.”

And:

“Just because a work is freely available, does not mean it is in the “public domain.””

[1] http://www.microsoftstore.com/store/msstore/html/pbPage.Help_Terms_of_Use#copyright

“Ignorance of the law does not excuse.”

A naive and trivialized view of what’s actually going on in the picture.

Think thousands of dollars of legal consultation costs and, failing that, even more millions of dollars of legal defense costs.

There is simply no way on earth a commoner or a small business can stand a chance that way.

“By the same token, the whole copyright system is broken. Media pirates assumed that there is nothing wrong in downloading media, and they got in trouble for it, and broke their banks too.”

Did RIAA or BSA say they were giving away music or software? Figured.

“It didn’t seem to me to be the case. Of course it does what copyright laws already do, because it is copyright.”

Tell Lessig about it, then:

http://creativecommons.org/

“Creative Commons licenses provide simple, standardized alternatives to the “all rights reserved” paradigm of traditional copyright”

“Yes, I agree that it’s not always giving them away for all purposes. However, for most intents and purposes, it is giving them away.”

And what that “most” means is left for you to figure out. Got a lawyer?

“You want to redistribute it as much as you want? You can do that.”

Nuh-uh. Have you read the small prints yet?

http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/

Try and figure out what “no derivative works” means exactly in a specific situation, I dare you.

“Just like few people are interested in modifying the source code of a program, there are only few people interested in modifying media.”

So, who are these “few people” to be exact? And who are the rest? Do you honestly think people can run their business by testing their luck on this sort of things?

“By saying that people shouldn’t give things away without strings, you’re saying that Microsoft shouldn’t give away Visual Studio Express without the ability to modify it.”

You want to modify stuff in the VS libraries? Maybe not with the given license. But as long as you know its a business you are dealing with, you know at least precisely what they are after (reads: $$) and whom exactly you are supposed to negotiate with to work out a different license.

CC/GPL stuff produced by some random street folk? Not so much so. You are basically playing crapshoot with people that are pursuing all kinds of weird agendas and probably have an axe to grind with your business. Their reputations do not depend on how trustworthy they are as brand names and they have simply nothing to lose even if they turn around and bit you on the back side for whatever legally non-binding promises they have made. That simply does not inspire any confidence to business operators.

“I mean everyone. Especially people who can read and understand what a license says, instead of just assuming they can do whatever they want.”

Let me point this out the very one last time – no one on the loving green earth knows exactly how to read a CC/GPL license correctly in all given situations. It’s just how vague that stuff is worded. You can find the “Free Software Director”, which is just another way to say “protection racket”, to give you an “accurate” interpretation after the fact? That’s great! Why not tell me more about that when I am filing my Chapter 11?

“What if all an artist wants is credit and nothing else (and so licenses his work under CC-BY)? Is that too much to ask?”

Then you aren’t really giving your work away, are you?

Well ImgX64, I see we have finally established that GNU/nonsensePL (et al) is in fact a form of copyright.

I am well pleased with your realisation.

Can we now drop the crazy pretence that GNU/copyrighted works are free or open?

They are not. Period.

—————————————

But those who wish to release information for free usage can and should refrain from using licenses of any kind (be it copyright or copyleft).

“Really? Who appointed you as the gatekeeper of English words?”

The real question is: who appointed Stallman as such?

——————————-

“Let me put this clearly: [MS’ tools are] free, and [are] licensed.”

They are free as in “no monetary costs”, not free, that’s actually perfectly clear.

The GNU/copyleft nonsense is declared as totally free, even though it isn’t, very surprising then that people (even managers) actually think it is free.

Most freetards also claim GNU/crap releases you from the need of reading the license and position that as a key advantage compared to copyrighted software.

After it turns out that you do need to abide by the very restrictive GNU/license, it’s suddenly YourOwnFault™ for not reading or understanding it, and of course, we are immediately told that GNU/copyleft WorksForMe™.

Not only are copyleft and copyright identical – they restrict your rights – but you are far more likely to end up in hot waters because of the former.

The only conclusion, then, is that GNU/copyleft is the more limiting and less free option.

————————————

“As for “open”, this is the most absurd definition of open I’ve ever come across. Open does not imply anything about restrictions. “

For any information to be considered open it must be useful beyond being readable – it must be editable and transferable – licensed information cannot be considered free, if you get bitten by a lawsuit when you try to use them.

And GNU/copyleft licensed information is worse in this regard than ordinary copyrighted ones (mostly because of the predatory use of language to mask the true nature of copyleft).

————————————

“I hate to break it to you, but languages have always changed over time.”

Sure they do – but it’s the majority that defines the meaning, not some crazy cult and its Zealots.

And we – the majority – say free and open does not mean restricted and closed.

Stop with Orwellian GNU/speak already.

(Admitting that CC is in fact just copyright was a step in the right direction, keep going.)

Correction:

...licensed information cannot be considered free…

The word “free” is, obviously, a typo; it was supposed to be “open”.

@JoeMonaco
“Creative Commons licenses provide simple, standardized alternatives to the “all rights reserved” paradigm of traditional copyright”

Yes. It doesn’t say it’s an alternative to copyright. Let me put it in other terms: Windows Phone 7 provides a simple interactive interface (Live Tiles), which is an alternative to the “icons” paradigm of traditional mobile operating systems.

——
“You want to modify stuff in the VS libraries? Maybe not with the given license. But as long as you know its a business you are dealing with, you know at least precisely what they are after (reads: $$) and whom exactly you are supposed to negotiate with to work out a different license.”

What about companies that release GPL software and offer to license it under different licenses for money, i.e. “selling exceptions”[1]? Is their intention clear enough for you?

——
@ReverseControllerSE
“Well ImgX64, I see we have finally established that GNU/nonsensePL (et al) is in fact a form of copyright.”

I never thought otherwise.

——
“They are free as in “no monetary costs”, not free, that’s actually perfectly clear.”

I know that, but I didn’t bring the gratis/libre (or free beer/free speech, or zero price/freedom) issue because I distinctly remember someone on TMR saying the exact opposite as you’re saying right now. He was claiming that the FSF twists the meaning of “free” to mean two distinct things when it has a single meaning. Go Figure.

[1] http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/selling-exceptions.html

Anyway, I’ll try summarize what I understood your opinions are. Feel free to suggest any corrections.

1- CC and GPL are too complicated and too vague.
2- When someone claims something is free (as in freedom), they are not allowed any rights over their work, period. If they put any restrictions, even small ones such as getting credit, their work shouldn’t be called free.
3- You don’t trust people who use CC or GPL¹.

I obviously disagree with some of your opinions. But at least now I know what I disagree with.

[1] My opinion: It’s just like how some people in the FOSS community don’t trust Microsoft to not sue them over Mono.

Nope, MS didn’t distort anything – they used a common meaning in the commercial world free as in no money, and in the commercial world there are no free lunches so you know there is a catch.

In this case you have to use MS’ platform and the tools have a license (certain specific restrictions apply).

———————————

The loons have, however, always repeated the mantra “free as in speech” – you are supposed to be free to do whatever you want with GNU/copylefted information, but it simply isn’t true, it’s just the same old copyright.

If you really want to give something away for free, it must be license-less, no restrictions can apply.

And in reality no author wants that, some want money, some fame and some have an agenda to push or an axe to grind.

Allow me to repeat: GNU/copyleft licenses restrict the rights of users, information, copyrighted by them, is neither free, nor open.

1. Probably, a lawyer could really answer that.

2. True.

3. Not at all, I’m just annoyed by all the nonsensical lies about freedom. The loontards need to shut their mouths (or be truthful, but that’s probably asking too much).

I think plenty of authors use GNU/copyleft licensees because of all the lies and exaggerations; and they are probably unaware of the (potential) issues.

“Allow me to repeat: GNU/copyleft licenses restrict the rights of users, information, copyrighted by them, is neither free, nor open.”

Just for the record, I’m not a fan of the GPL and copyleft myself (and I’ve said that several times), even though I understand (not necessarily agree with) their motives.

However, being in the open source camp, I do have a gripe if you’re saying that BSD and CC-BY are not “open”. Can you please clarify your opinion on “open” and BSD/CC-BY? (no “free” or copyleft included)

I did, as long as the license prevents any kind of use, then the information is neither free nor open.

I’m not saying that BSD license is a problem – it may be permissive enough.

But the very existence of a license leads to the necessity of reading and understanding it – and that means delays and costs, not so free then, is it?

Okay. You’re entitled to your own opinion. However, I’d like to point out that the rest of the industry doesn’t share you your definition of open. Here are a few examples, completely non-loon examples:

1- As I said above, Microsoft agrees with the Open Source Initiative that the following licenses are “open source”: Apache, CDDL, EPL, GPLv2, LGPL, Ms-PL, Ms-RL, Mozilla, BSD, MIT. None of these fit into your definition.

2- Steve Jobs has called the H.264 standard an “open standard”. Yet, everyone knows that it uses many patents, and you can’t actually use this “open standard” without a license from MPEG-LA.

3- OpenVMS is anything but open, yet is still called open.

I’m not saying that your definition is right or wrong. It’s just that nobody else uses it.

Well, MS is pragmatic and they went along with the nonsense instead of trying to redefine it properly – and while I’m at it, it’s not their job to do so (neither was Stallman’s, but that’s another story).

—————————————-

Open standard is “read only” by the definition of the word standard – you can’t have a right to modify it, if it’s supposed to remain a standard; and you have to be able to read it, and either tell others (copy) or point others to the source if they are to follow it (if they can’t it’s not really a standard).

—————————————-

And how, exactly, is OpenVMS open, pray tell; or is it just a name, eh?

Oh, I forgot, the reason nobody cares or concerns themselves with the SourceNonsense™ is because nobody cares.

Outside of the loon/cult circles everybody accepts the simple fact you need to rely on others to get their end of the job done properly – they don’t intend to (nor can they and they don’t fool themselves) look into other people’s code.

Have you verified the source of your car (all of it, not just the software)?

Why not and why would you?

————————————

The whole open source madness is a cult by-product and as such the cult maintains control over the verbiage.

Others just don’t care enough to do anything about it, so the idiotic language abuse can continue unabated.

“What about companies that release GPL software and offer to license it under different licenses for money, i.e. 'selling exceptions’[1]? Is their intention clear enough for you?”

I would expect something like that coming from Sun or Novell (and, ah… Whatever happened to them), but you ended up quoting Stallman’s double-talk. Nice work, chump.

Look, here’s the bottom-line – if you need to change your “give-away” licensing terms so you can actually give the licensed material away (or “selling” since Stallman has trouble understanding what people mean by “free”), then whatever you have done is simply not the equivalent of giving the material away – you are simply allowing someone else to use it with several dozen strings attached. That’s is. No rocket science there, is it?

But, hey, if you want to compare that to VS libraries, which are in every sense commercial products that are normally sold at $500-$600 along with the whole suite, I can’t stop you. But if you think the word “free” means anything more than licensed to you at no costs, you obviously have no idea what a “business” is all about.

And I am not terribly eager to lecture you on such bare basics.

“1- CC and GPL are too complicated and too vague.”

Yes, and… ?

“2- When someone claims something is free (as in freedom).”

Damn… Look up a dictionary, for Pete’s sake. An inanimate object does not have “freedom” – it’s inanimate. That means it doesn’t have the desire to own firearms or talk about politics. It doesn’t have money to pay for barracks or a house for you to raid. It just sits there lifelessly when some guy who eats his own filth talks stuff about it.

You definition of “free” is just a stupid, made-up no one – other than the freetards perpetuating it – accepts.

“3- You don’t trust people who use CC or GPL”

You see, I would trust people who worship, erm… Use CC/GPL if I was:

1) into fluffing about “proprietary evil” and “corporate evil” all day,
2) a hobbyist who also believes that hobbyists produce the best software (Note for the slow: they don’t), and
3) unemployed.

But let’s not be too side-tracked by these thing. Why not just, like I said, try and explain what “no derivative works” mean in CC-ND to us, for all situations? I am pretty sure IP lawyers around the world will be jumping in ecstasy knowing the fact that this ball of fluff is finally untangled for them once and for all.

In the mean time, we will just stick to product that comes with a brand name and no legalese landmines.

@ReverseControllerSE
“Well, MS is pragmatic and they went along with the nonsense instead of trying to redefine it properly – and while I’m at it, it’s not their job to do so (neither was Stallman’s, but that’s another story).”

If the industry as a whole uses what you call nonsense, does that mean nonsense won and the language changed?

Oh, and if it’s any condolence to you, Stallman hates the term “open source”[1].

——
“Open standard is “read only” by the definition of the word standard – you can’t have a right to modify it”

Then it’s not really “open” now, is it? It’s a standard, and modifying it is pointless, I agree, but it’s still not open by your definition.

Unless you’re using a double standard. (Sorry, couldn’t resist)

——
“And how, exactly, is OpenVMS open, pray tell; or is it just a name, eh?”

Yes, just by name. But then, you say people will be misled if you call things open, and naming something open is, surprisingly, calling it open. “OMG OpenVMS is open!!! I’m free to copy it and modify it! It’s public domain!!!shift1”

——
“The whole open source madness is a cult by-product and as such the cult maintains control over the verbiage.”

Thank you for being honest. Now I know you think I’m a cultist.

[1] http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.html

@JoeMonaco
“I would expect something like that coming from Sun or Novell (and, ah… Whatever happened to them), but you ended up quoting Stallman’s double-talk. Nice work, chump.”

What’s wrong with quoting Stallman? Quoting does not mean I worship him or anything. I just included that link there in case you were not familiar with the concept of selling exceptions.

——
“Yes, and… ?”

And nothing. A simple “Yes” or “No” was all I was looking for. See ReverseControllerSE’s comment for an example.

In case it’s too subtle for you, I’ll try to explain it to you.

The point of conversations is to make the other party see your point of view. When you say something, you want me to see your point of view, right?

Now, in my pursuit of a civil conversation, I tried to understand your opinions, summarized them in three points, and wanted a confirmation that I didn’t miss your points. I wasn’t trying to argue, or somehow trying to rebuke your points. I was just trying to understand them.

——
“Damn… Look up a dictionary, for Pete’s sake. An inanimate object does not have “freedom” – it’s inanimate. That means it doesn’t have the desire to own firearms or talk about politics. It doesn’t have money to pay for barracks or a house for you to raid.”

No one has ever claimed that inanimate objects has the desire to own firearms. I didn’t mean the object has freedom. I meant free as in “you have the freedom to use it as you wish”, as opposed to what Microsoft means when they say “Free Developer Tools” and still license it. I’m sorry I chose words that are too subtle for you.

See, ReverseControllerSE, this is why I don’t bring that topic up. You understand the distinction, can you please explain it to JoeMonaco? I doubt he’ll listen to me.

——
“You definition of “free” is just a stupid, made-up no one – other than the freetards perpetuating it – accepts.”

It wasn’t about my definition. I was trying to understand yours.

I’ll try rephrase my above sentence.

When someone claims they’re giving something away and that it’s free, they are not allowed any rights over their work, period. If they put any restrictions, even small ones such as getting credit, their work shouldn’t be called giving away and free. Microsoft says it has free developer tools, but they’re not giving them away.

Do you agree that the above paragraph is your opinion? If you disagree, what changes would you make to it to make it agree with you?

——
“You see, I would trust people who worship, erm… Use CC/GPL if I was: ...”

I’ll take that answer as a “Yes, I don’t trust them”.

“What’s wrong with quoting Stallman? Quoting does not mean I worship him or anything. I just included that link there in case you were not familiar with the concept of selling exceptions.”

Look – if you are here with the assumption that we don’t know jack about what Stallman says about this kind of stuff, then please re-evaluate your assumptions.

“I wasn’t trying to argue, or somehow trying to rebuke your points. I was just trying to understand them.”

Interesting… If you were that inclined to understand anyone’s standpoint, you would be reading through all the FUD trackers entries and trademarks instead of having everyone here belaboring the damned things over, over and over again. Either that, or you are… Well, ask yourself about it.

“No one has ever claimed that inanimate objects has the desire to own firearms. I didn’t mean the object has freedom. I meant free as in 'you have the freedom to use it as you wish’.”

Really? Can I incorporate GPL code to, say, CDDl code then and redistribute the result then? No? Then it’s not really “uss it as you wish”, is it, kid?

“[A]s opposed to what Microsoft means when they say “Free Developer Tools” and still license it.”

No joke, kid. Unfortunately, I don’t think the majority of humankind has quaffed enough Stallman’s Kool-Aid to believe that the word “free” can possibly mean anything other than “free of charge” or “unoccupied” when applied to an inanimate object.

Tough luck, 'innit?

“When someone claims they’re giving something away and that it’s free, they are not allowed any rights over their work, period.”

No joke. It’s called a loving “freebie”. Ever heard of that?

“Do you agree that the above paragraph is your opinion? If you disagree, what changes would you make to it to make it agree with you?”

Look – you are still utterly confused with the distinction between “free” as in “freedom” and “free” as in the “free” that every person not giving a flying rat rectum about Stallman’s drivels understands.

“Freebie”... How hard is it a concept to grasp? Does Proctor and Gamble need to put “this is not the Bill of Rights” on their shampoo samples to get the idea of “free” across to you? Look, kid – I don’t think you are really that abjectly poor at reading comprehension. Has Jonestown got into your head somehow?

Oh, I see your point now. I guess I was a bit thick then.

I still disagree, but at least now I know your point.

——
“Interesting… If you were that inclined to understand anyone’s standpoint, you would be reading through all the FUD trackers entries and trademarks instead of having everyone here belaboring the damned things over, over and over again. Either that, or you are… Well, ask yourself about it.”

If I do that, then I can’t ask people to clarify what they mean. I might be missing big parts of their points and be unaware of it. I know I’ve done that before.

Oh, and no one forced you to belabor anything, you know you want to do it. We’re all this guy: http://xkcd.com/386/

Just to clarify ImgX64 – if you were a cultist, you’d be screaming at us, so a cultist you are certainly not.

(Having seen the loons act-out as they do, I believe they are utterly incapable of any kind of subtleness.)

The problem you do have is a level of exposure to freetarded propaganda that has caused your views of the world to be er… flavoured by their taint.

No big issue really, sooner or later you’ll come to realise their ramblings are rather useless and counterproductive.