[cc-community] More discussion on NC
akozak at creativecommons.org
Mon Oct 11 13:03:47 EDT 2010
Great paper Fred, I really enjoyed it. I think it's a great way to draw the
distinction between cultural works and software.
Within your framework, there is this interesting area where "cultural works"
bleed into the fungible (like Wikipedia) and there is this blend of fungible
and non-fungible elements. I'm thinking here of OER, scientific
publications, ontologies, etc. In those cases the copyrighted work aims
towards some function or outcome, and maybe that is why certain licensing
norms are more common in those areas than in, say, music or video.
On Mon, Oct 11, 2010 at 9:44 AM, Fred Benenson <fred.benenson at gmail.com>wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 11, 2010 at 11:30 AM, Alan Cox <alan at lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk>wrote:
>> > I think that there is a visceral argument here that is very different to
>> > software and data. In those fields, you can expect that everything you
>> I wish people would stop drawing that imaginary line. Software isn't
>> different. There are tons of software cases where an economic analysis
>> says NC or personal use makes economic sense and where things like the GPL
>> do not.
> While I've found myself agreeing with a lot of what Alan has been saying on
> this thread, I think I disagree on this point. I do think software is
> different, even categorically so.
> I think the reason *why* software is different (mainly explained by its
> fungibility) is why its easier to make an argument for it to be freely
> licensed. CC intends their licenses to be used for cultural works, where the
> requirements and demands of works are distinct.
> I've actually written a paper on this exact topic, submitted it as a manuscript
> submitted for publication in The Social Media Reader, NYU Press, Michael
> Mandiberg (ed.).
> Please find it attached.
> cc-community mailing list
> cc-community at lists.ibiblio.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the cc-community