[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [libreplanet-discuss] [Trisquel-users] Final Thesis: H-node

From: Michał 'rysiek' Woźniak
Subject: Re: [libreplanet-discuss] [Trisquel-users] Final Thesis: H-node
Date: Thu, 16 May 2013 15:59:35 +0200

Hi there,

For some reason I sent it to Mike instead of to the list, re-sending.

Dnia środa, 15 maja 2013 o 22:45:54 napisałeś/aś:
> On Wed, May 15, 2013 at 12:20 PM, Michał 'rysiek' Woźniak
> <> wrote:
> > Dnia środa, 15 maja 2013 o 20:41:49 Thomas Harding napisał(a):
> >> > That is too bad. Thank you for the info.
> >> > 
> >> > I think that if their name is Creative Commons, those are the licenses
> >> > they should support. If they want to support other licenses that do
> >> > not belong to the commons, they should make another name for that
> >> > group: perhaps Non-creative Restrictions.
> > 
> > That would be too strong. They did help the libre culture movement
> > thrive, in no small part thanks to their advocacy and licenses. And I
> > have to acknowledge and recognize that years ago -NC and -ND were indeed
> > needed to get the first artists on-board with CC.
> What first artists? There existed artists releasing work under free
> terms before CC existed.
> There were also artists releasing work under non-free public licenses
> before CC.

True. That's why I said "get on-board with CC", not "libre culture".

> Famous artists, not in either case. Nor since -- the few that have are
> rounding errors, and haven't continued. If non-free licenses have
> helped make inroads, it is beneath the level of noise.
> The route to success is plainly not through famous artists though;
> they and their handlers do not give a damn about public licenses,
> rationally.

That is why you will not find the phrase "famous artist" in what I wrote 

The crucial thing, IMVHO, was getting *some* artists on-board and showing that 
while there were other attempts at libre licensing of culture, CC was the 
first one that actually made a splash and helped create a whole ecosystem of 
libre licensed works on *compatible* licenses.

> > However, now, with CC and libre culture movement are both well known,
> > they are starting to be a liability, though.
> Well known by what standard? Against the backdrop of all culture, CC
> is obscure and the libre culture movement is probably even moreso.

Maybe that's a local thing, but here in Poland CC-licensed works are making 
inroads in education (e.g. the government-mandated "e-textbook" programme will 
use CC-By; many government grants require releasing works created with their 
help under CC-By also), businesses, art. Wikipedia is of course a very potent 
vehicle as far as disseminating knowledge about CC licensing goes.

But that is really beside the point. My stipulation was that 10 years ago CC 
was even *less* known and I can see how -NC and -ND might have been needed to 
get some people -- generally irreverent towards libre culture -- interested in 
CC licenses.

This has changed and in my opinion CC does not need to reach out to such 
individuals any more. CC is used by huge and well-known projects, including 
government-mandated or financed. There are thousands upon thousands works 
under libre CC licenses (CC-By, CC-By-SA). Large companies offer services 
based on CC licensing (i.e. image search in Flickr/YT).

Hence my point that now, -NC and -ND are a liability, as it makes it harder to 
explain to John Doe the Elementary Teacher what the heck are libre licenses 
("waait, they are not CC?" -- I get that a lot, and I do trainings about libre 

> Overall the movements have way too low expectations for both freedom
> and cultural relevance.

Please explain?

Michał "rysiek" Woźniak

Fundacja Wolnego i Otwartego Oprogramowania

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]