Development of Creative Commons licenses

[Joachim Durchholz <jo AT durchholz.org>]

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