Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

cc-uk - Re: [Cc-uk] FS vs CC?

cc-uk AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Cc-uk mailing list

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: David Illsley <david AT illsley.org>
  • To: J.Grant <jg AT jguk.org>
  • Cc: cc-uk AT lists.ibiblio.org
  • Subject: Re: [Cc-uk] FS vs CC?
  • Date: Thu, 23 Jun 2005 13:06:48 +0100

<snip>


If I understand your point correctly it is a follow up to my point about
CC staff using proprietary software to create proprietary files for the
CC websites.

The point I intended to make in my previous point and my previous email
might have got lost while writing it. That is: This debate about CC content
provisions relates directly to CC support of proprietary file formats,
which then obviously ensure CC content only works with proprietary software.

(I do not lump together "proprietary software" and "file formats". In
case that was not clear from my first email.)

That is the key distinction, there is no obligation on the part of CC to
stop using Photoshop to create their PNGs etc in this debate. There is a
well known proprietary software package called JASC WebDraw which can
create open, accessible web pages with W3C standards compliant
animations, if CC were using this package, it would be an ideal example
of them using proprietary software to create accessible, open content, a
significant step in the right direction.

I posted on my blog about this previously, if you are interested in
reading: http://jguk.org/2005/blog_2005_05_15.html

Kind regards
JG

To me you're implying that CC has an obligation to use open file formats. Why?

I'm a believer in open file formats for many, many reasons but I see CC as being a broad church which is using a simple legal approach to copyright reform. To me that is the goal, and while I think it's be great if CC could use open formats, I don't think it should be limited to doing so if it's not the most effective way of using its limited resources.

That's what I took from the original e-mail, a worry (which I share) that FSF freedom advocates will increasingly argue that CC MUST act in ways corresponding to principles which they hold but which are not core to the specific project. That narrows the church considerably and doesn't help with outreach to many companies whose help will be required to make CC a further success. An example might be if Apple added CC support to Quicktime 8 and wanted CC to present some CC- advertising in that format to drive adoption of Quicktime 8. To my mind that would be entirely consistent with CCs mission and past approach but which might be opposed by FSF style purists.

The issue for me is one of compulsion. I'm a pragmatist and if its appropriate the I think CC should use free tools and open file formats but I don't think it should be limited by that. Lets use this broad church as a vehicle for the stated goals and use other groups to drive changes unrelated to copyright alternatives/reform.

David Illsley
(Semi-Regular F/OSS Developer)

P.S. I apologise if anyone thinks I'm attacking anyone who is an FSF advocate. I'm not, I just think that the RMS mentality might be harmful to CC.

Attachment: smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature




Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page