On 19 February 2011 10:41, Teofilo <teofilow...@gmail.com> wrote: > Maximising reusability is not the same as maximising usability.
This is a nice-sounding phrase, but its meaning is entirely unclear. And maximising usability would mean rationalising the list of licenses anyway. Paralysis of choice is actually bad interface design. > If you open your eyes a little bit, This phrase is heuristically a good indicator of a conspiracy theorist. > you'll see that Creative Commons > licenses are not the absolute legal chef d'œuvres people would like to > believe they are. There are some good things in them, but they have > some weaknesses. I don't think anyone questions that. However, they have one important advantage: they're really common and they observably work. You're positing an imaginary ideal world against a functional existing one. > They are not even... free per the definition of Free works at > http://freedomdefined.org/Definition/1.0 because they don't contain > any open source requirement ("Availability of source data"). This is > different from the GFDL which, more fortunately contains the > "transparent copies" requirement. You don't find any "transparent > copies" requirement in Creative Commons licenses. I think you could be the only person on the face of the planet to try to argue that CC by-sa isn't a free content licence. - d. _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
