Development of Creative Commons licenses

["Greg London" <greglondon.1 AT gmail.com>]

On 4/25/07, James Grimmelmann <james AT grimmelmann.net> wrote:

CC has adopted the word "freedom" because it is both accurate according
to this very old meaning and has positive (and appropriate) emotional
associations.  The way in which CC is using the word is not identical to
the precise ways in which FSF uses it.  That difference does not
necessarily mean that anyone is being dishonest, or confusing, or
manipulative.

 

Uh huh.

 

So, when creative COMMONS picked the name COMMONS

and started the website with pictures of cows grazing in

a COMMONS, that wasn't confusing? That was a honest

and accurate representation of what CC was all about?

 

Because I still have a problem with fact that creative COMMONS

has as its most commonly used license CC-NC-blah.

 

But Cows Grazing in COMMONS that has, to use your phrase,

a very old meaning. And my question to you is not whether

choosing the name creative COMMONS is dishonest and

manipulative, but whether it is accurate and clear.

 

I believe CC removed the cows in teh pasture pictures

because someone got that the images where a whollly

accurate representation of what CC was really all about.

Spectrum of Rights is a sufficiently different concept than,

say, a common pasture shared by a community.

And this is further reinforced by the FACT that the most

popular CC license is actually a NON COMMONS style

license, some variation of NonCOmmercial something or other.

 

So, you committed a strawman when you presented my

argument as if I were saying CC is dishonest and manipulative

in using the term "freedom" at the top of its front page.

 

I don't think anyone did that with evil intent.

But I think whoever chose that phrasing

didn't choose the words with the whole picture

of CC in mind. Because CC isn't just about

Freedom.  You can jump through all the language

lawyer hoops you want, but Freedom has one

and only one meaning around copyright.

And CC isn't it. If you seriously believe that

it does, and that it accurately portrays the

whole of what CC is about, then you've

drunk the koolaid.

 

I also think that whoever chose the wording

didn't do so with the thought of how clear it

might be to people coming to CC for the

first time. Sure it gives a warm fuzzy, but it

gives a warm fuzzy without any clarity that

not everything CC does has anything to do

with Freedom.

 

Alternatively, it might be that whoever chose

that wording truly does think that the best way

to describe the whole of CC in one sentence

is to say its about "freedoms". And that may

still not be due to any evil intent.

 

People often cast themselves as the hero

in their own personal saga. And they may

think that they really are all about freedom.

But that doesn't accurately represent the

objective measures of what CC does.

 

PART of CC is about Freedom. And CC could

qualify that by pointing specifically to the

licenses that are Free, like CC-SA and BY.

But CC can't simply sum up the totality of

what it is all about by saying "Freedom".

 

CC is way to pragmatic to be able to cast

itself in that light. It's a spectrum of rights,

it's some rights reserved, its a number of things,

but it isn't Freedom.

 

That doesn't mean CC is evil because

they're NOT about Freedom.

But saying they are about Freedom

is not accurate.