ml at creativecommons.org
Wed Dec 14 16:11:49 EST 2011
On Wed, Dec 14, 2011 at 12:24 PM, Anthony <osm at inbox.org> wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 14, 2011 at 2:03 PM, drew Roberts <zotz at 100jamz.com> wrote:
>> Many people are fine with non-Free culture. That does not mean they walk hand
>> in hand with those who are concerned with Free culture.
> I don't see how the two are mutually exclusive. Can't someone be fine
> with non-Free culture, but also be concerned with Free culture? Sure,
> RMS doesn't fit under this category, but many other people do.
RMS does fit in this category, for come categories of culture
(software not among them, obviously). See
for "categories"). It's an interesting delineation, but not all that
well known nor agreed with, AFAICT. Plenty of people vehemently
disagree, saying that the same freedoms RMS wants for "functional"
works need to be available for all categories of work, eg recently
In any case, it is certainly possible to be concerned with both free
and non-free culture, in a non-, or at least not-very-oppositional
fashion. Lots of people make such points in particular regarding the
public domain, fair use, and other exceptions & limitations -- when
these are impoverished, so is the overall culture which draws from and
depends on them, much of it what we'd call "non-free" culture. I think
CC is broadly within that tradition. A healthy society and culture
needs a vibrant commons. Public copyright licenses are currently one
effective mechanism of cultivating the commons.
The relatively narrow questions about what public licenses ought
include, and how such things might be tweaked and communicated, so as
to be most effective at cultivating the commons, are what's discussed
here. And I think that people only interested in free, and those
interested in both free and non-free, ought be able to be roughly on
the same page -- the common objective is a vibrant commons, regardless
of what exists outside of that.
> On Wed, Dec 14, 2011 at 2:22 PM, Rob Myers <rob at robmyers.org> wrote:
>> On 14/12/11 17:41, Anthony wrote:
>>> I think NC is a terrible license because it doesn't fit with the
>>> principles of CC, not just because it's "not Libre".
>> So let's push as hard as we can to get some official recognition of this
>> in 4.0. :-)
> How? What should I do to help?
This is a lame thing to say, but you're helping by participating in
this conversation. :-/
What is really needed (not just for NC, but all 4.0 issues) is a good
cost/benefit (the object being long-term health of the commons)
analysis of specific proposals, starting with distilling a set of
potential cost/benefit items. There's some space on the wiki for that,
but feel free to put ideas out on the list as well.
> On Wed, Dec 14, 2011 at 3:18 PM, jonathon <jonathon.blake at gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 14/12/11 17:41, Anthony wrote:
>>> For NC licenses to cover *use* of a work they would need to be EULAs, and they are not (they explicitly are not).
>> There are those that treat CC-BY-NC-ND as a _Your Rights Removed_ EULA.
> I'm tempted to suggest that this be embraced, and NC licenses be
> written as EULAs similar to Microsoft's "Educational Use Only" EULAs.
> But some people might not get the sarcasm.
I just have to say that of course BY-NC-ND is not at all, legally, a
_Your Rights Removed_ EULA. All CC licenses don't effect exceptions &
limitations, allow format shifting, and filesharing. But I'm sure
everyone reading this knows that.
If some CC licenses are widely perceived as adding restrictions,
that's a bad thing, and to be weighed. (We have of course tried to
communicate some of the above on all of the deeds.) I would love to
have some good research on perception of the various licenses and
effects of such perception, but I don't know of any. Doing such
research would be another way to help. :-)
More information about the cc-community