Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

cc-licenses - Re: what is freedom? was: Re: Why do you have to chose the "Attribution" option with the new CC 2.0 Licenses?

cc-licenses AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Development of Creative Commons licenses

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: James Grimmelmann <james.grimmelmann AT yale.edu>
  • To: Discussion on the Creative Commons license drafts <cc-licenses AT lists.ibiblio.org>
  • Subject: Re: what is freedom? was: Re: Why do you have to chose the "Attribution" option with the new CC 2.0 Licenses?
  • Date: Tue, 17 Aug 2004 09:14:35 -0700

At 02:34 AM 8/17/2004, Rob Myers wrote:

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.

Yochai Benkler describes this situation with the phrase "appropriation." The absence of certain kinds of property protections means that some private actors can come in and effectively reconvert to privately-held something that use to be a common resource. Appropriation undercuts the value of the free access that people enjoy to the resource. In terms of "freedom," something that is formally too free and open can, in practice, become less free because of appropriation. (The desire to prevent appropriation is a strong motivation behind the copyleft provisions in the GPL.)

Why this definition?

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.

. . . because NonCommercial is also a form of anti-appropriation provision. The theory behind a significant number of NonCommercial uses is that one wants to keep companies from appropriating the work from the commons. There are cases in which it may not be as effective an anti-appropriation provision as ShareAlike might be, but in many cases it will be effective enough.

This kind of motivation for NonCommercial licensing has, significantly, fairly little to do with hostility to companies in general: it shares something of the GPL's spirit that profit-making which enhances the commons rather than diminishing it is totally fine. It just stakes out a different view of which borderline between "enhance" and "diminish" it will try to police.

And further, that anti-capitalist glow can be a surprisingly subtle thing to pin down. Plenty of artists, for example, have warm and fuzzy feelings towards ISPs, technology makers, and print shops, but hate media corporations with an anger born of long frustration and the painfully-acquired knowledge of evil.

There may also be people who want to wield NonCommercial as a weapon against companies in general, but simply don't understand the indirect support for platform and infrastructure companies that a vibrant media commons provides. But I'd rather not say that everyone who uses a NonCommercial license -- including myself, Cory Doctorow, and Professor Lessig -- is morally confused.

>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.

Very true. And the freedom to hit implies the corresponding lack of a freedom from being hit. (In Hohfeldian language, for the law geeks, every power implies a corresponding liability.)

James




Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page