Development of Creative Commons licenses

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

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

> "Common" is a very interesting word.  It comes form the same Greek word

... (pointless Cliff Claven moment snipped)

> None of these meanings are wrong.

 

That was a very nice shell game.

"There are so many definitions,

guess which one CC is using?"

 

Sure.

 

Look. It's very simple, really.

 

There are two kinds of licenses: Free and Proprietary.

 

Neither are inherently better than the other, but

their definitions are not interchangable simply

because you or CC wants to more closely

associate itself with the warm fuzzy language of

"Freedom" or the feel-good language of a community

based, shared commons.

 

If you want to blow smoke so you don't have to

face definitions, fine. Drink the koolaid. But I will

present them one more time for your benefit.

 

Proprietary licenses maintain the creator at some advantage

over the rest of the community. NC and ND are proprietary.

 

Free/Libre/OpenSource licenses place the creator on

equal footing with the community. copyleft and PD are FLOS.

 

The only way this becomes difficult to understand is if

understanding means you've got to face something 

you thought was true that isn't. Usually, it's people who

have some emotional investment in some work they

licensed CC-NC-ND-BY, and think they are some

great philanthropist who did the world a great favor

by using CC-NC-ND-BY on their work.

 

Or similar.

 

CC has done some great work, but that work is best

described as Some Rights Surrendered,

not Authors granting Freedoms that enable Commons.

 

Lets just run by that phras again, shall we:

 

authors granting FREEDOMS that enable community-based COMMONS.

 

You seriously think that is the main effect that CC

has produced in the world?

 

And to defend the choice of words by playing language games

rather than simply acknowledging the fact that most people will

take Freedom and Commons to mean something very specific that

isn't the main thrust of what CC is about, now THAT is dishonest.

 

If you refuse to acknowledge ANY possible confusion,

on the choice fo terms for Freedom and Commons,

then you've drunk the koolaid.

 

If CC cannot be rsponsible for its choice of words and correct

places that are clearly confusing because to avoid confusion

requires that folks research the last couple hundred years of

the meaning of the word "Commons", then I just don't know

what to tell you. but by all means, more explanations based

on language games that attempt to prove just how clear the

choice of vocabulary is, won't help.