ml at creativecommons.org
Tue Dec 13 22:29:33 EST 2011
On Tue, Dec 13, 2011 at 7:06 PM, Joe Corneli <holtzermann17 at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 14, 2011 at 1:42 AM, Patrick Anderson <agnucius at gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Must Creative Commons take a stance against Open Access?
>> Imagine we modify that question - replacing "Creative Commons"
>> "The Free Software Foundation".
> I'm imagining it, and my guess is that the FSF doesn't care, except
> when the resource being distributed is software (or documentation).
> If I imagine transposing Open Access to the software world, then it
> becomes "software as a service", which the AGPL takes a strong stance
> So, in the limited case in which this thought experiment is relevant,
> I think the answer is, "Yes, FSF must, and has, taken a stance against
> the variant of 'Open Access' that is relevant in its world."
I'm really not sure what you're referring to as "Open Access" now.
Generally, especially capitalized, OA refers to Open Access
scientific/academic communications. The OA movement has been around
for a long time, and OA publications may be found under a variety of
terms (including no public license, ie unmitigated copyright), though
many argue that full compliance with the main three "BBB" OA
declarations require publishing under a fully open license (ie
allowing both derivatives and commercial use).
I doubt you're referring to that use of OA if you're saying it is like
SaaS. What am I missing?
(Apart from that possible misunderstanding, you make good points in
the email Patrick replied to.)
Tangentially, though people associated with the FSF have spoken
against SaaS, it is incorrect to say the AGPL takes a stance against
SaaS. Rather it attempts to protect user's freedoms even when they are
using SaaS. Overall, I think that CC/free culture/open content can
draw interesting lessons from FLOSS, but one has to be fairly careful
when making analogies. (But when made well, they're powerful, so don't
More information about the cc-community