[Cc-uk] FS vs CC?
jg at jguk.org
Wed Jun 22 16:25:32 EDT 2005
On 22/06/05 16:50, Andres Guadamuz wrote:
> Dear all,
> I was hoping to keep some of these comments to my blog where they would go
> unnoticed :), but I guess that this discussion is really unearthing some
> deeper problems that I wanted to comment on.
> I am afraid that the arguments that we have been seeing here in the last few
> days are a continuation of the Free vs. Open debate in software. It seems
> clear to me that there is a growing number of criticisms coming from the FS
> camp against the direction of CC, and these remind me of some of the heated
> debates between FS and OSS proponents. I must admit that I find this
> development disturbing because I strongly believe that we must present a
> united front. I think that the next year is going to see an increase in
> organised attacks against CC from the creative industries, and internal
> bickering will get us nowhere. This is not to imply that there should not be
> criticism against CC! By all means, there should be. My problem is that I
> have been noticing a tendency to imply that CC is not kosher from the FS
> perspective, that FS is better, that FS has a more centred philosophy, that
> FS has clearer goals, etc.
I think there is not very much public discussion of CC's mistakes so
far, so discussion on this list is better than in public on blogs etc.
I think the main problem is the contracdiction in some aspects of CC.
Like CC's public endorsement/support of secret Macromedia Inc content
> These criticisms may respond to the possibility that FS proponents are
> finally realising that CC is more akin to OSS than to FS. In my view, it
> should be clear that Creative Commons is not Free Software. Both movements
> have different stated goals and have different target audiences. CC is
> attempting to reach and educate the mainstream, and when you do that you
> must be prepared to compromise. There is no reason why CC staff should not
> use proprietary software, and there is no reason why CC should not use
> proprietary standards from time to time if it can be used to reach the
> target audience.
> The mainstream uses proprietary software, this is a fact. We cannot force
> people to use non-proprietary software, even if we think that they should.
> The battle must be won with quality and usability, and we all have to be
> honest that large quantities of FLOSS are not particularly user friendly.
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
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
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
More information about the Cc-uk