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 20:09:53 -0400



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.
 
 
 
 
 
 



Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page