[cc-licenses] Stallman On CC
rob at robmyers.org
Wed Feb 8 14:05:52 EST 2006
On 8 Feb 2006, at 17:10, Alexandre Dulaunoy wrote:
> "You may not use this work to advertise for or promote anything but
> the work you create from it."
> It's still a NC-like license... so not free by default. So not like
> the GPL ;-)
I agree that CC-Sampling is not Free. But CC-Sampling allows
commercial exploitation of the work *for* and *as* work, and so is
not like NC. It gives sampling/remixing/mash-up practitioners the
"freedom" to use the work as they would expect, as the GPL gives
hackers and other computer users the "freedom" to use the work as
they would expect.
The draft of the GPL version 3 allows licensors to add conditions to
the license, one of which is that derivatives may not use the
licensor's name in -er- advertising the product. :-)
> Free Art License is a free license and there is no restriction like NC
> or ND. Broader access is permitted with the Free Art License... than
> the restrictive CCs.
But the FAL is domain specific. It does not help art get access to
broader culture, or allow broader culture access to art. It would not
help Andy Warhol, Jeff Koons, or Joy Garnett. CC-Sampling would help
> Just my IMHO,
Oh, me too. :-)
On 8 Feb 2006, at 17:49, Jamie Jensen wrote:
> Actually, the GPL is only secondarily a social contract for hackers,
> if it is one at all.
The GPL is a way of restoring the social contract of hackers culture
that Stallman regarded as being broken at the MIT AI lab by the
intrusion of non-disclosure agreements and the "Symbolics Wars".
> Stallman rejects the Sampling license because he
> believes that prohibiting noncommercial verbatim copying is unethical.
I agree. This is why the sampling plus license is better. But IMHO
the principle of "transformative fair use" is as fundamental to art
and music as the principle of "hacking" is to programming.
More information about the cc-licenses