Development of Creative Commons licenses

[Rob Myers <robmyers AT mac.com>]

On Monday, August 16, 2004, at 11:31PM, mp <mp AT fsc.cc> wrote:

>I am fascinated by the concept of "freedom"... in software the *most
>radical view* seems to be that:
>
>Freedom = the lifting of all constraints.

Lifting all constraints does not ensure freedom. That's why WINE relicensed 
and why Microsoft are so happy with the BSD license they got their TCP stack 
under.

>In the work of CC one would assume that the project was to translate the
>Freedom of Free Software *as a metaphor*, rather than literally
>transposing it unchanged/unchallenged to other domains. For what is Free
>exactly?? 

In software we have the FSF and the Debian definitions amongst others. IMHO 
anarchist or """Libertarian""" ideas of freedom are less useful here than the 
idea of a Free Society.

>- in the world of political theory the concept of lifting all
>constraints is one of the central elements of the global capital market
>forces, sometimes referred to as the laissez-faire aspect of
>neo-liberalism. 

<tinfoil-hat>
Free trade is enforced by treaties, suppored by infrastructure created with 
public money, and given disproportionate tax breaks. And if you don't want 
free trade the World Bank will have something to say to you. Free Trade is 
not free in the real world.
</tinfoil-hat>

>Human rights are constraints, as are the Ten
>Commandments.... Is the world ready for Full Freedom beyond software?

In a Free society our freedoms are maintained and protected by law. IMHO 
freedom and lawlessness are not the same thing, indeed they are all but 
opposites.

IMHO full Freedom sounds like lack of Rights, which isn't freedom. If I am 
not free from harm, if I am not free to speak my mind, if I am not free to 
move from place to place, I am not free. 

>I doubt it. My freedom is bound up with yours and with everyone else's,
>-- and other parties' Freedom might well impinge upon your capacity to
>be *free*... 

IMHO this is not Freedom, this is unconstrainedness or irresponsibility.

>For instance, the pursuit of profit for profit's sake alone
>through severe and devastating exploitation, such as exercised by oil
>companies etc., -is that something that can be embraced by (or within)
>Freedom? - can we be building freedom if our community includes such
>actors?

Any system can be gamed and exploited. If you are not Free to criticise this 
or even to talk about it, it doesn't matter whether the entity is a state 
monopoly or an oligarch's toy, exploitation will happen.

Boxing off commercial exploitation with the holy badge of NC takes nothing 
back from the commercial entities that will profit from the creation and 
distribution of the work regardless. 

So IMHO :
1. NC stops anyone who uses the work from making money off of it.
2. The internet service providers, software and hardware companies, internet 
hosts and print shops that are involved in the creation of the work still 
make money off of it.
3. The warm glow of anti-capitalist virtue people get from NC is therefore 
self-defreating. They are giving money to commercial interests without taking 
anything back from them.

>[...]
>How much damage and greed and violence can Freedom sustain?

Free software udner the GPL is doing very well. The GPL ensures freedom.
Free software under BSD isn't doing so well, as the TCP and WINE people will 
tell you. The BSD license provides stuff for free, it doesn't ensure freedom.

>Free Software in guided missiles, is that Freedom?

Yes. :-( It is freedom for software. Ensuring that one is free to object to 
the missile's use, or that one is free from being on the receiving end of it, 
are different freedoms.

- Rob.