Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

cc-licenses - Re: [cc-licenses] CC homepage

cc-licenses AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Development of Creative Commons licenses

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: "Greg London" <greglondon.1 AT gmail.com>
  • To: "Discussion on the Creative Commons license drafts" <cc-licenses AT lists.ibiblio.org>
  • Subject: Re: [cc-licenses] CC homepage
  • Date: Wed, 25 Apr 2007 17:57:27 -0400



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.
 
 



Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page