Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

cc-education - [cc-education] proliferation, balkanization

cc-education AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: development of an education license or license option for Creative Commons

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: Ben Crowell <cceducrowell03 AT lightandmatter.com>
  • To: cc-education AT lists.ibiblio.org
  • Subject: [cc-education] proliferation, balkanization
  • Date: Thu, 28 Aug 2003 14:07:28 -0500

Dave Wiley wrote:
>Thanks for your messages last night. If had been anyone else I would
>have thought it was a denial of service attack on the list. =)
You mean my attack failed? :-)
It's nice to be in touch again, and I'm glad my sometimes strident
opinions don't seem to have offended you.

> If you've ever
>been 10 weeks into teaching 8th grade math in an inner city school in
>New York without textbooks because the school system can't afford them,
>you would thank the Maker for free materials,
There are many laudable goals that are nevertheless inappropriate for
CC in my opinion. At my school, there is a program to donate physical
books to Ethiopia. It's great, but it has nothing to do with the concept
of the /commons/. Likewise, the proposed cc.edu license seems to me to
violate the concept of a commons. It's not a commons if it provides a
way of excluding people. Logically, we could next have the cc.god license,
to be used only in churches.

I wrote:
>The question is not whether there's anyone who wants a certain licensing
>scheme.
>The question is whether CC should lend its name and legal expertise to it. If
>people don't want to contribute to the world of free information, that's
>their
>business, but I don't see why they deserve any help with it. The "Commons" in
>Creative Commons has to mean something. It's not possible to say one is
>putting
>something in the commons and yet denying access to soldiers, politicians,
>arabs, jews,
>or people who talk on their cell phones while driving SUVs.
Dave wrote:
>Overstating for effect is generally my sole territory, but you've done
>it well here. =) Your encouragement of everyone writing their own
>license would only significantly increase the confusion you wanted to
>avoid in your last post. It also creates the same troubles OPL did,
>namely the creation and evangelism of licenses by people with no formal
>legal background.
I would like to /discourage/ people from writing their own licenses, and I
would also like to /discourage/ people from using a discriminatory license
such as cc.edu.




Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page