[cc-licenses] CC homepage
ewieder at creativecommons.org.il
Wed Apr 25 11:21:38 EDT 2007
Greg, Greg, Greg...
This last message really comes as a surprise...
Did James touch such a sensitive spot, so that you had to post that message
on the list without proofing or re-reading it even once?
As being such a freedom fighter, can't you give CC people the freedom to
interpret the word "freedom"? Do you, or does the FSF or anybody else have
monopoly on this area? Let's not be hypocritical...
On 4/25/07, Greg London <greglondon.1 at gmail.com> wrote:
> *James Grimmelmann* james at grimmelmann.net
> > "Freedom" has many meanings.
> > There are the freedom from want, the freedom from fear, the freedom of
> > speech, the freedom of the press, the freedom of religion, the freedom
> > of conscience, the freedom to copy, the freedom to adapt, the freedom to
> > redistribute, the freedom to travel, the freedom to marry, degrees of
> > freedom, sexual freedom, and many more.
> Right, because when someone is getting defensive about
> using a CC-NC license on their work, and they quote
> the CC website that talks about Freedom, they're really
> talking about the freedom to be homosexual.
> Give me a fricken break.
> People want to use the word "Freedom" because it's cool.
> Not because it's accurate.
> Even if FSF and the entire Free Software community
> had NOT already defined what "Free" means in terms of copyright,
> CC could STILL change "freedoms" to "rights" because
> "rights" is far more accurate.
> But as always, everyone wants on the "freedom" bandwagon.
> Yeah, man, we're all in one big happy freedom boat when
> we're talking about freedom. ANd freedom is free, so no one
> gets to make it have just one definition, so it's OK if we use
> our own definition, even if it doesn't match anything in the
> commonly held definition. man.
> Because its better to make the emotional plea, than to
> stick with the facts. It's just more accurate to say "freedom"
> than it is to say "rights".
> ANd DRM is really only about protecting artists freedoms.
> And anti-circumvention clauses are protecting creator freedoms.
> Sure. Sure it is. Double-speak is fun.
> > Moreover, the Free Software Definition talks about "free" (adjective)
> > software having four "freedoms" (noun, plural). Something under NC or
> > ND offers freedoms 0 and 2. .. The
> > result will fall short of being genuinely "free," but this is not an
> > abuse of the word "freedom."
> Sure. And NC and ND are all about freedom baby.
> Where did I put my tie-dye shirt.
> All I need now is a monologue from Dennis Hopper
> to explain why free is free and nothing can 't make it not free, man,
> and it'll be perfect.
> Saying using CC-NC-ND-BY is managing the "Freedoms" to your
> work is a disgusting warpage of the language just to be on the "in" crowd.
> Anyone arguing otherwise either does not understand the language,
> or has a personal payoff at stake to be on the Freedom bandwagon,
> rather than being accurate.
> "War is Peace," "Freedom is Slavery," "Ignorance is Strength."
> And CC-NC-ND-BY has NOTHING to do with Freedom,
> nothing to do with managing Freedom. And assoctiating
> CC-NC-ND-BY with "Freedom" has EVERYTHIGN to do
> with people wanting to move the boundaries so they end
> up on the side of the "good guys".
> cc-licenses mailing list
> cc-licenses at lists.ibiblio.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the cc-licenses