Cc-europe mailing list

[Florian Philapitsch <florian.philapitsch AT wu-wien.ac.at>]

Dear Paul, dear All,

you are probably right, this should be adressed on a seperate  
occasion, but, as I said, when and where?
Since we are already talking about that issue, I'd like to add some  
(personal and frustrated) thoughts to Henriks rant.
I have been active in the CC-business for a very long time now, I got  
in in the midst of the creation of the first CC-licenses for Austria.  
Since then I have spent quite some time on the CC-issue. Mainly  
because as a web-user I liked the idea of the project and as a jurist  
I liked the license-part. I wrote several texts on behalf of CC, I  
gave some speeches and I am just finishing the 3.0 licenses for  
Austria. For most of these things I did not recieve any money. For  
most of these things I did not _expect_ any money.

Personally, I am no big fan of iCommons. It feels like a generic  
movement, a forced good-will-organisation and the uptight and  
disilliusioned jurist in me despises the world-hugging  
copyright-hippie direction this "movement" has taken (the idea of a  
"greener" iSummit still makes me go *rrrraaaaahhh*). But hey, I do not  
have to like iCommons to work on CC which IMO is still a  
copyright-project.
Paul, you are right, the decision about the lump sum has been made -  
but this does not make it indiscussable. With the chosen solution, the  
optics are extremely poor. I regard it almost as a personal insult,  
when I invest unpaid time and work into CC, and then CCi (which I do  
not wish to blame for anything here) pays iCommons a sum for my  
participation and ultimately (and in the worst case scenario) I have  
to pay for my trip to Sapporo and the stay there.
This will result in fewer people travelling to Sapporo, therefore  
saving CCi some money but it also will result in some people (like me)  
severely considering if they want to further want to invest time and  
work when they end up paying for their trips themselves.

To sum this up in an over-simplifying way - personally, I do not want  
to have to do with iCommons. As a copyright jurist I am interested in  
the CC-licenses and the many interesting legal questions they bring  
on. Thinking that, ultimately, iCommons is getting money for the work  
I do, is making me a sad Panda :)

kind regards from Vienna,
Florian

Zitat von Paul Keller <pk AT kl.nl>:

> On 23 Apr 2008, at 10:03, Florian Philapitsch wrote:
>
> > I totally agree with this letter and will be happy to sign it.
> > The issue with the seperation between iCommons and CC is raised, but
> > not really elaborated upon.
>
> dear Florian,
> thanks for your reponse....
>
> > In my opinion this will be one of the
> > major issues in the future. If I think of the mentioned 1000 USD paid
> > by CCi for the participation of (voluntary working) CCi-members to
> > iCommons, thereby nuking the sponsorship for travels, I feel that
> > clear and clean borders have to be drawn here.
>
> i do not think that we should adress this issue in the letter
> (disclosure: i am on the board of icommons) for the simple reason that
> this decision has been made and we are beyond the point that it can be
> changed. i agree with many of you here that the way the contribution by
> CC to icommons is structured is not the most obvious or elegant one,
> but in the end it does not really matter if icommmons pays a lup sum of
> USD xxxx to icommons or if that sum is expressed as xx * nomber of
> participants send to the summit by CCi. i do agree with you that there
> need to be clear and clean borders and i think that our letter
> underlines this.
>
> best regards, paul
>
> > This HAS to be addressed and discussed, however, I am not sure, if
> > this letter is the right place. On the other hand - what is?
>
> --
> Kennisland | Knowledgeland
> t: +31 20 5756720 | m: +31 6 41374687
> www.kennisland.nl | www.knowledgeland.org