Development of Creative Commons licenses

[drew Roberts <zotz AT 100jamz.com>]

On Wednesday 14 February 2007 04:01 pm, James Grimmelmann wrote:
> drew Roberts wrote:
> > Well,would someone connected with CC who is in the know explain this
> > quote from their web site:
> >
> > "We're a nonprofit organization. Everything we do — including the
> > software we create — is free."
> >
> > Do they mean libre or gratis. Or both.
>
> I'm not presently connected with CC, but I read that statement as
> meaning gratis.
>
> That's the meaning I that one without background in the free software
> movement would assume on reading that statement.

I would like to hear an official answer though.
>
> > And also once again from their history page:
> >
> > http://creativecommons.org/about/history
> >
> > "Creative Commons' first project, in December 2002, was the release of a
> > set of copyright licenses free for public use. Taking inspiration in part
> > from the Free Software Foundation's GNU General Public License (GNU
> > GPL),"
> >
> > So, they may not have been initially constituted on the norms of free
> > software, but they were at least in part inspired by the Free Software
> > Foundation's GNU General Public License (GNU GPL) by their own admission.
> > Thus, copyleft was one of the initial inspirations for CC. It is not too
> > much to think that the existing definition of Free (libre) should be
> > respected. Am I crazy here?
>
> Yes.
>
> Well, not crazy, just wrong.  But ask a rhetorical question, get a
> rhetorical answer.  :-)
>
> This passage talks about being inspired by the GPL itself, not by the
> rhetoric of "freedom" around the GPL.  And that's completely true.  In
> this passage, "free" is referring not to the content, but the license
> itself.  There is no charge for using the license and no one is
> prohibited from using the license.

Could be.
>
> There is a problem here in that the term "free" is a term of art coming
> out of the free software movement, but that the general English-speaking
> public doesn't know that precise meaning.  

Yes, and no. In old Roman days, a slave could purchase his freedom and become 
a free person. The problem we have in english is that free is overloaded.

> I am unconvinced that it is 
> CC's responsibility to educate the general public about this
> distinction.  

I will not go so far as to say it is their responsibility, but it would be 
helpful if they would. At least insofar as making it easier for those of us 
who wish to do so. For instance, I have seen the question asked here is the 
last day or so as to whether the use of the CC logos was one they would 
authorize.

If they make it too difficult to do what we want. There will be pressure to 
go 
with other licenses that make this easier. Personally, at this point, I would 
not like to see that.

I don't like NC and ND. I whish CC had never messed with them. Even today, I 
wish they would drop them. Even so, I see no need to push for this to happen. 
But I do see a need to easily divide the Free from the non-Free. That needs 
to happen.

I could just create the Free CC logos myself. But then would the legal eagles 
get involved over trademark issues? I could also set up Free CC mailing lists 
or google groups or whatever. Same problem. This is a real need and I think 
it would be best met within the official CC world for the good of CC overall.

> There are lots of good organizations working hard towards 
> that goal; CC's strength is in generating good licenses and in building
> tools to help people find content released under those licenses.

But by their very mixing of the free and non-free under one banner, they 
actually make this searching more difficult. This is no nit picky complaint, 
this is a real prolem for at least one person (me) when searching for BY and 
BY-SA works.

It is possible that I am putting the blame for the problem in the wrong 
place. 
I will redily admit that. But I will not admit that it is not a real problem.

>
> James

all the best,

drew
-- 
(da idea man)