Jump to: navigation, search

Hi Kim,

Having scanned the license (admittedly in less detail than I would liked to, given my time contraints :-( )

Speaking in CC terms -- This would be a license which:

  • Drops the requirement for attribution (as in the early days of CC) plus
  • A requirement for open file formats :-)

I don't see that CC-BY is necessarily compatible -- because of the file formats. What if a user down the line saves the resource in a non-free format?

Candidly -- I don't licenses are effective tools to regulate intent. I would rather see everything in the public domain :-) -- but that's another complicated issue because many countries do not recognise the PD declaration in the national Copyright legislation. I see licenses as a pragmatic and necessary evil --- and that we can do far more in moving the world forward by walking the talk (as we both do.)



Mackiwg (talk)20:20, 29 September 2009

Hi Wayne,

Thanks for taking time to look at this.

Yes, it is very similar in intent to the old "ShareAlike" license which was not updated by Creative Commons on the path from 1.0 to 3.0. Their argument was lack of interest in the SA 1.0 license. A better argument might have been that with any CC license one is free to specify attribution as "anonymous" or "not required" (but one would have to dig deep to discover this in most cases), or that without attribution the licenses are unenforceable.

Regarding the free file format requirement:

  • > ... "What if a user down the line saves the resource in a non-free format?"
    • No problem: the new derived resource would not be "Libre Puro" and the author would have to drop the "Libre Puro" label.
  • "Free file format" may be too strong a statement. "Open file formats" might be sufficient (including e.g. OOXML ??)
  • I have thought of dropping the free file format requirement as one would be free to convert the resource into a free/open format and then adapt it, etc. The knowledge resource is "freeable". However, there may be cases where it is not. For example, what if a knowledge resource is available in a proprietary DRM-encumbered format? It might even be illegal to convert it and, in that case, we would not want to be encouraging people to try.

I still believe the license has merit:

  • Libre Puro Resources may be mixed into CC-BY-SA and CC-BY repositories such as WE and Connexions]
  • The associated freedoms are immediately obvious (as they are with the newer CC icons) including the freedom not to "attribute"
  • The simplest license that could possibly work
  • It does not criminalise kids (or anyone) for mixing and sharing - decouples abuses from the act of making copies. Other areas of the law or social processes may manage abuses (e.g. academic institutions and peers will not recognise plagiarised theses), while libre technology enables libre knowledge.

I have not "pushed" this license too hard as I often get strong "not yet another license!" reactions. When the time is right, more people will engage in this discussion and either help refine it or convince me that it is not a sound idea (not convinced yet, and there are a few issues which need to be ironed out).

Re: > "Candidly -- I don't [think] licenses are effective tools to regulate intent. ..."

The vision is for the sight of the associated emblem Libre Puro (backed up by a license) to inspire a feeling of freedom for anyone to use, adapt, share, ... and co-create the global knowledge commons.
... away from the notion of individual "ownership" of ideas, knowledge, etc.

PS The preamble and Creative Commons Deed need refinement too.

KTucker (talk)14:31, 27 October 2009