Sorry for the problems, Karl. Yes, the comments are moderated. Would you be able to try once more to post it? Thanks for the note, tvol
On Mon, Dec 17, 2012 at 4:26 PM, Karl Fogel <[email protected]>wrote: > Timothy Vollmer <[email protected]> writes: > >Hi SFC: > > > >There's been some good discussion on the CC-community email list, and > >FYI we also published a blog post today asking for broader feedback on > >this issue. > >http://creativecommons.org/weblog/entry/35773 > > Great post. Thanks for letting us know, Timothy. > > By the way, I tried a couple of times to leave a comment there. At > first I thought it was just waiting in a moderation queue, but other > comments have appeared since then, so I'm not sure what happened to it > (I did the recaptcha with no problems as far as I know). This was the > comment: > > Name: Karl Fogel > Email: kfogel {_AT_} questioncopyright.org > Website: http://questioncopyright.org/ > Comment: (long; below) > > Before addressing Stephen's comment, I'd like to say it's great to see > Creative Commons engaging this issue so seriously, and the proposed actions > seem very constructive (especially the rebranding of NC as "Commercial > Rights Reserved"). A blog comment probably isn't the place to address all > the pros and cons of the non-free licenses, so I won't do so here, but CC's > own <a href="http://wiki.creativecommons.org/NC_ND_discussion"; > >summary</a> in the CC wiki lays out the issues very well. > > Stephen, I think your definition of freedom is idiosyncratic and would not > be recognized by most people who use and distributed CC resources, even > under the non-free (meaning -NC and/or -ND) licenses. It's simply not true > that NC license guarantee the material will be accessible without > cost — even if monetary cost were the only important > component of freedom, which it's not. When material is licensed in a way > that allows commercial use without permission having to be asked first, all > sorts of possibilities open up! > > Take translation, for example: > > I wrote a book that was published under CC-BY-SA, and it has had > subsidized translations made <em>and was then published and sold</em> in > some EU markets. It is unlikely the organizations that funded this work > would have done so if they had not had a clear license requiring no > negotiation (in part because the resultant derivative works themselves > could not have been freely licensed if the original were not). The > overhead of rights negotiation is a <a href=" > http://questioncopyright.org/translations_a_tale_of_two_authors"; >serious > obstacle</a> to unanticipated, permission-free sharing and derivation that > has commercial aspects — and much real-world activity > inevitably has commercial aspects. > > This is not necessarily an argument that the non-free licenses should not > be available. My point is that the two halves of your last sentence do not > go together: <em>"It should be retained, and promoted as equally open and > equally free."</em>. Maybe the non-free licenses should be retained... But > they are not equally open and equally free when compared with the truly > free licenses, and CC is absolutely right not to promote them as such. > >
_______________________________________________ Discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.freeculture.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss FAQ: http://wiki.freeculture.org/Fc-discuss
