[cc-community] commons (was Re: NC/ND)

Anthony osm at inbox.org
Tue Dec 20 00:33:15 EST 2011


On Mon, Dec 19, 2011 at 6:08 PM, Mike Linksvayer <ml at creativecommons.org> wrote:
> A commons can be a fairly limited affair. One could (and presumably
> there are many; certainly there are many de facto) "creative" commons'
> with sharing among only some specific community or field.

I guess that explains what you see the term as meaning.  Collective
ownership, with "collective" including very limited groups.

And I guess that also explains how something like NC can fit in.
Thanks.  That's pretty enlightening.

On Mon, Dec 19, 2011 at 6:08 PM, Mike Linksvayer <ml at creativecommons.org> wrote:
> CC's role is
> to provide some tools, and effectively set standards, which facilitate
> creation and cultivation of commons, so as to maximize global social
> welfare. I think there's pretty universal agreement that offering
> standard tools to share on a very limited basis, say "only if you're
> an ethical hacker, artist, or other craftsperson working in Inverness,
> Scotland" are really suboptimal from a global welfare perspective

There is not "pretty universal agreement" that "optimality from a
global welfare perspective" is even something that is definable.
Among other problems, it rests on the assumption that welfare is
cardinal, and not merely ordinal (nor unmeasurable altogether).

There are *lots* of critics of welfare economics.

Maybe you mean pretty universal agreement among CC supporters?


More information about the cc-community mailing list