Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

cc-licenses - Re: [cc-licenses] Restricting Derivative Works

cc-licenses AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Development of Creative Commons licenses

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: Terry Hancock <hancock AT anansispaceworks.com>
  • To: Discussion on the Creative Commons license drafts <cc-licenses AT lists.ibiblio.org>
  • Subject: Re: [cc-licenses] Restricting Derivative Works
  • Date: Tue, 27 Jun 2006 00:05:01 -0500

White, Phil wrote:
TH: he also asserted that the case for free-copyleft versus
proprietory TH: -assignment was not proven (060623:1746)

Incorrect. I have, however, said that there are times when other
licenses maybe more appropriate. I also said that I have made
statements as to why I thought my scheme would work whereas the Free
system would not - I maintained that neither TH nor myself could
prove our own respective assertion in this particular context of
application.

Incorrect? Here's what you said, and what I replied, for the record:

> With the greatest of respect, I am not here to substantiate
> anything. I have made statements, and that should be good enough. How
do I
> prove my assertions? In truth, I cannot, but then again you cannot
> do likewise to the contrary.

Um, actually I can. That's what I meant by "empirical". It's quite
easy to compare the success of institutions like "H2G2" (proprietary
assignment license) with "Wikipedia" (free licenses). H2G2 is far
from dead, of course, but has nowhere near the success of Wikipedia.

For a more "useful arts" comparison, look at the pathetic atrophy of
Microsoft's "shared source" community and Sun's "community source
license" compared to the roaring success of free/copyleft software
projects. The legal difference is precisely the same as between your
project and a free-collaboration project.

I of course, have a solid theory as to why that is, but my argument
is not merely theoretical, and certainly not a mere hypothesis.

I don't really understand your firewall problem, or why you can't
just use a public server for this project (it's not like they're
expensive, and there are plenty of services like Sourceforge or Wikia
that would surely host the site for you for free). If your own
organization is preventing you from doing that, then they are going
to wind up as the actual owners of the site's IP, and *you* should be
worried about the IP-hijacking scenario for your own self (not only
because it'll mean you lose control, but also your reputation with
contributors is hanging on the 'character' of your employer!).

Of course, I don't say this with any serious hope to sway you at this
point. But don't try to argue that I have no support for the
position -- years of experience and a sound theoretical understanding
of the social dynamics behind collaboration in both an academic and a
free-culture setting have informed my opinion.

Greg has argued the theoretical case exceedingly well, and I have
just pointed out some of the most visible facts supporting that
theory. To the degree that a medical professional esteems himself a
scientist, he should be moved by such methods.

The only unscientific part about my argument is that if I really wanted
to make publication quality claims I would need to find statistical
metrics to prove:

1) Wikipedia is vastly more 'successful' than H2G2

2) 'free-licensed open-source' communities are more
'successful' than 'shared source' or 'sun community source'
communities

3) Which of course, requires me to define 'successful' in terms
of objective metrics (e.g. LoC, bugs/LoC, # words, # topics,
# of contributors, etc).

However, neither Phil, nor anyone else has challenged these
assertions of fact. The consensus appears to be that the numerical
difference is so overwhelmingly great that actually counting it
out is sort of unnecessary (I suspect this is true, but as I posted to
cc-community, I'd really prefer to see a real study collect these
statistics).

So you're "half-right": you can't substantiate your claims, but
I CAN substantiate mine. If you've challenged my facts or my
analysis of them, I haven't noticed it. ISTM, you've just ignored
them because they refute your claims.

I don't deny that occasionally, bold leaders make important
progress by ignoring evidence and going on a gut feeling, but
I'm not sure that you appreciate this is what you are doing.
And I really believe that in this case your 'gut feeling' is wrong.

Cheers,
Terry

--
Terry Hancock (hancock AT AnansiSpaceworks.com)
Anansi Spaceworks http://www.AnansiSpaceworks.com






Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page