Development of Creative Commons licenses

[Terry Hancock <hancock AT anansispaceworks.com>]

Greg London wrote:
> Oh good grief. I'm aware of the difference between

Of course you are, Greg. I'm not suggesting you don't. Please lower your
pugnacity setting. ;-)

> assigning copyright versus licenseing copyrights.
> The FSF has a number of works that are *licensed* GPL
> but FSF requires that contributers *assign* rights
> to them. They were doing this long before CC came
> around.

Actually, I thought of mentioning that as an example of the distinction,
but it's a little off point. The point is that artists see certain
formulaic expressions to do with rights transactions, and their
experience will tend to lead them to knee-jerk assumptions if certain
formulas are evoked.

A lead-in to a website is very sensitive to this kind of thing, because
you're trying to attract new people who may only skim the first few
lines before deciding whether to keep reading or buzz off to some other
topic. So if it does have this effect to use a certain expression, then
it's a valid concern.

> But Dana and I weren't arguing about "assign" vs "license",
> we were arguing *freedom* versus *rights*.

The key point is that you were in fact "arguing" and not "having a
constructive conversation".

Dana has revealed what may be his real concern -- the reason for the
resistance. This is possibly an opening to a more constructive line of
discussion, and we should thank him for doing that instead of just
continuing to resist on a specious foundation.

> So, Dana is saying that there is a difference between
> rights and freedoms. that you "license freedoms" and
> you "transfer rights".

Actually, no, he didn't say that. He said that artists would be confused
because of *connotations* of these words, due to their use in other
contexts. That suggests that the real problem isn't with the word
"rights", but with evoking a linguistic formula that he considers
undesireable.

Therefore, I attempted to rephrase the opening in the terms of the
specific formulas that I *know* that artists and writers are familiar
with (because I am one, and I read a lot of writers' guidelines).

> That's a totally bogus distinction.

It's a connotative distinction, which is not quite the same as saying
that it is "bogus". So now we have a new problem -- resolve the
ambiguous and offensive (to some of us, anyway) usage without creating
undesirable connotations.

That's the kind of problem I like to solve, so I'm doing my best. ;-)

> Copyright doesn't
> grant authors a list of exclusive rights and a list of
> exclusive freedoms. Copyright grants authors some exclusive
> rights, and they can license or transfer or do whatever
> the hell they want with them. What they *do* wasn't the point.

It may not have been your point, because what you are now doing is
trying to *win* an *argument*. But that's not going anywhere, Greg.

So let's try a new tack, along the lines of "what would be a better
opening".

> The point was that they are all exclusive *rights*,
> not exclusive "freedoms". Therefore, "freedom" is an
> inappropriate and inaccurate term for CC to use when
> talking about their licenses in general,
> because some of their licenses have nothing to
> do with freedom.

Yep. So let's not use it that way.

> And my question to Dana still stands:

It's really more of a "challenge" than a "question" at this point.

> Show me how the first line of the front page of the
> CC website is more accurate to say "freedom" than
> "rights".

It isn't, and I've already agreed with you, Greg. However, the alternate
formulation with "rights" has a connotation that CC wishes to avoid (or
at least that's how Dana feels).

That's an actual answer to the question you *did* ask, Greg -- which was
what 'was wrong with saying "rights"'.

> No doubt, the language could be modified to some
> alternative so that the result avoids the word
> "freedom" and replaces it with the word "rights",
> and it would be a much more accurate description.
> 
> Your suggestion is much more clear than the current
> opening, and it is automatically clear that not all
> CC licenses have anything to do with freedom.

So, actually, after hitting me with a lot of flak, you're actually
saying you *like* my suggestion, then? :-D  Awesome!

> # "CC licenses grant a range of non-exclusive rights
> # to the public at large, in a modular way, ranging
> # from near total control (By-NC-ND) to near total
> # freedom (By)."
> 
> I don't care how it's worded. I just don't want the
> word "freedom" used in an ambiguous and confusing way.

Yes, and I agree with you. And since people who feel as we do about this
are (I hope) an important "core market" for CC, I think it's fair to ask
that our sensitivities in this regard be respected.

Acknowledging, however, that there are other important market segments
who might be disturbed by a simple "freedoms->rights" substitution, I
suggest an alternative that bears in mind the sensibilities of jobbing
artists and writers. I kind of also like the idea of making clear the
whole "not all CC licenses are 'free'" and "spectrum of rights" concepts
right from the beginning. That creates a useful frame for understanding
what follows, IMHO. It also presents an accurate depiction of the real
factions in the community.

So the question now, is "is the rewording attractive to anyone who
actually has the power to change it?"

IOW, can we turn this 'fight' into a constructive change?

Otherwise, we're just kind of blowing a lot of smoke to no purpose here.
I mean a good flame war can be fun in its way, but fixing something
that's broken is even more fun, IMHO. ;-)

Cheers,
Terry

-- 
Terry Hancock (hancock AT AnansiSpaceworks.com)
Anansi Spaceworks http://www.AnansiSpaceworks.com