Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

cc-education - Re: [cc-education] WHY EDU ?

cc-education AT lists.ibiblio.org

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

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: Glenn Otis Brown <glenn AT creativecommons.org>
  • To: development of an education license or license option for Creative Commons <cc-education AT lists.ibiblio.org>
  • Subject: Re: [cc-education] WHY EDU ?
  • Date: Tue, 10 Feb 2004 18:57:44 +0900

more choice in licenses means
more restrictions in rights given for a work.

Does "CreativeCommons" mean ANYTHING?
or is it just a convenient URL under
which licenses as restrictive as
CC-BY-NC-ND-EDUONLY can be bandied
about under the banner of *MORE CHOICE*,
under the argument of "some rights
are better than no rights"????


let me see if i have your logic straight.

you're saying that if we offer a license we don't currently have, then
we're being tyrannical? you're saying that if content that is currently all rights reserved is freed for educational uses because of this license, that this is a loss for liberty? interesting.

but put that logic aside. please try some constructive criticism. if all you have to offer is
capital letters and a suggestion that we start our organization over from
scratch, after your coming in late to a conversation -- a conversation that
began months ago, to which you've contributed zero of anything positive
-- then please re-consider participating. or, just be ready for us to
stop wasting our time responding to you.

dogma and ideology, no matter how passionately advocated or zealously embraced, don't do much, particularly when they're expressed in this fashion.

Do the people behind Creative Commons have
any commitment behind its NAME or its
stated MISSION?

actually, yes. a lot of people put a lot of work into it. not lines and lines of complaint. actual work. it's because of this work, and the work of predecessors like david wiley, and of the licensors out there who have joined the cause, that there is content available today. that content wasn't available two years ago. but i guess because we haven't thrown a bomb into the gears of all IP law, by your thinking, we're sell-outs. it's exactly this kind of extremist thinking that is ruining the debate.

i myself would rather be the kind of person who has helped build a pool of content that would otherwise be fully copyrighted than a gadfly with a lot of strong opinions and no content.


thanks,

glenn



On Feb 11, 2004, at 11:08 AM, email AT greglondon.com wrote:

On Tue, 10 Feb 2004 14:06:05 -0800, Heather Ford wrote:
I think that the default in this early stage should
definitely be *MORE CHOICE* rather than less.




How can the MISSION statement say stuff like
"Like the free software and open-source movements,
our ends are cooperative and community-minded"
when you forward and encourage some licenses that
have NOTHING to do with open-source and nothing
to do with a public commons?

You can adopt whatever licenses you want,
and you can do it by tyrannical decree for
all I care. I'm just point out to the
people behind CreativeCommons.org that
WHAT YOU SAY AND WHAT YOU DO ARE NOT LINING UP.

If you're going to offer licenses like
CC-BY-NC-ND-EDUONLY, then you need to
take the cow in the commons off your
front page and you need to stop associating
yourself so closely with open source software
projects and idea in your mission statement.

Otherwise, calling yourselves a commons and
having mission statements that associate you
with the open source movement is irresponsible.
_______________________________________________
cc-education mailing list
cc-education AT lists.ibiblio.org
http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-education





Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page