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: Joachim Durchholz <jo AT durchholz.org>
  • To: Discussion on the Creative Commons license drafts <cc-licenses AT lists.ibiblio.org>
  • Subject: Re: [cc-licenses] CC homepage
  • Date: Thu, 26 Apr 2007 19:11:03 +0200

Greg London schrieb:
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?

I agree that it is misleading, too.

Though I think the misrepresentation was unintentional. I have heard statements that Lawrence Lessing is less than happy that most people use NC and/or ND, instead of sticking with a bare BY.
(Contrast this with the FSF which insists that its usage of terminology is correct and, indeed, the only correct one - it's this kind of "I'll enforce my way of thinking upon you" that I detest, even if I share its goals.)

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.

It's inaccurate and confusing.
Fortunately, they aren't insisting on terminology, so I can assume it's not intentional (and hency *not* manipulative).

A more accurate naming would have been "modular copyright licensing".
It's actually what I like most about it - much as I like the idea that creativity should be a commons, it isn't under current law, nor is there a realistic proposal how it could work, nor is it likely that it will change in our lifetime.
In this situation, CC's current licensing kit is the best that I can imagine.

Draw up and evangelize for something better if you disagree.
I don't think that you'll be able to change their policy from within.

Spectrum of Rights is a sufficiently different concept than,
say, a common pasture shared by a community.

Agreed.

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.

Let me look how they phrased it - did they mean "Freedom" or "freedoms" (aka "rights")?
I never really bought the idea that having the right to use the creative works of others is related to Freedom (with a capital F) in any way, so I have to admit I didn't read that section very carefully.
Checking...
It clearly says "freedoms". I.e. rights. No misrepresentation here.

Though I have to say it's a fine point, and bordering on the misleading.

On the other hand, they *want* people to take something without NC and ND, so playing on the "set it free" metaphor seems part of that. (It's of course propaganda, too. The difference with the FSF's policy is that they don't try to prescribe my use of terminology, so I can rephrase the issues when I'm talking to CEOs and PHBs.)

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.

Right.

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.

Agreed.
Just for the record: I'd also say that wrt. the FSF.

That doesn't mean CC is evil because
they're NOT about Freedom.
But saying they are about Freedom
is not accurate.

If I ever said something in that vein, it was by mistake.

Regards,
Jo




Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page