[ubuntu-in] WHY CC Licensing is not a good idea

[shirish]

Replies in-line :-

> Message: 5
> Date: Wed, 28 May 2008 01:34:44 +0530
> From: Ramnarayan.K <ramnarayan.k at gmail.com>
> Subject: Re: [ubuntu-in] WHY CC Licensing is not a good idea (Was
>        Looking for a flat-bed scanner in the 6-7k range)
> To: "Ubuntu India Local Community" <ubuntu-in at lists.ubuntu.com>
> Message-ID:
>        <6c9588d40805271304w46d3d675na07ccf0e4fe36577 at mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=WINDOWS-1252
>
> Hi Shirish,

Hi Ramnarayan,

> thanks for saying its not a flame war - it isn't and needn't get that way.

true

> So to the issue
>
> 1. Why do you think licensing your mails would give people a better
> idea about CC licensing. Why will a foot note or link or some other
> creative idea be better.

It gives people an option to click on that link. Whether to choose to
not is upto them.

> 2..Apart from advertising CC licensing - is there any other reason to
> license your mail - to this list or generally.

Apart from advertising, generally yes specifically on company mails and others
so people know the idea originator. Of course people can read archives and know
who said what, but people generally don't. For this list specifically,
no not any other motive.

> Would you license your mail(s) under any other Copyright law / system-
> i think not - why because the process is too cumbersome and maybe it
> might even cost some. So the ease in which one can Creative Common
> License anything gives it an inverse power over copyright and its free
> to boot. However with freedom comes great power and with great power
> comes even greater accountability- cliched yes but common no.

Also true.

> Would your copyrighted email (under regular copyright laws) be
> acceptable to this list and to the other equal users ???

Perhaps and perhaps not. What I choose to believe is of my own.
I am not expecting others to do or belief in the same.

> The question is are you licensing your mails because you can or
> because you have a need. If you feel that your mails need to be
> licensed - as envisaged by the
> thought and /or philosophy that underwrites the concept of CC
> licensing then really its your choice.

Right.

> On the question of why it devalues the concept of CC licensing - my
> opinion (and other may add - agree / disagree??)  is because CC
> licensing was sought as an alternative to the restrictive Copyright
> and proprietory system that exists. Its value is that it provides the
> opportunity and freedom to express ones creativity and at the same
> time have a way of opening the creative work (or any work) to a larger
> community without the "normal" shackles. It seeks to provide an
> alternative but not necessarily to make it easier to license anything.

True.

> Today you are (maybe) posting from a laptop / desktop computer -
> tomorrow it may be through a pda / phone and that could extend to a
> note with every sms you send - or freedom forbid at the end of every
> phone call we get a recorded message saying that this conversation is
> CC licensed.

Again possible specially if I do get that paranoid, why not ;)

But isn't that possible today, not just for CC licensing, it could be
any licensing or warning or whatever.

I'll give an e.g. we see Ads, for e.g. ads for financial products. At
the end of the ad, you get statutory warning.  The warnings are given
much more quickly then the other portion/narration of the ad.

My point is people are going to use these tools, whether you or I
somebody likes it or not.

> So the bad habit comes in when the freedom of CC licensing is
> trivialised by it being used for anything and everything rather than
> for those works which actually need that kind of licensing.

Who's to judge which works needs that actual licensing or not? The
creator or the people who are going to see that art or whatever
creation is? From what I understand the licenses are meant to protect
the creator while giving him/her the freedom to share in which manner
he/she deems to share with the larger community.

> The concept of GNU/LInux , CC, FOSS or whatever other philosophy you
> would like to follow is free speech and freedom of speech. Any license
> however liberal , even CC  is a form of restriction.

True, again.

> In our digital life we anyways have to subscribe to a vareity of
> licenses or choose to violate a few, and that is mostly at our
> discretion or choice. but in this case
> we are an involuntary /unwilling receipient of your licensed mail and
> also as a somewhat equal member of this ubuntu list kind of take
> objection to having a licensed mail thrust at me - - it can be seen
> as a violation of my right to "free speech" and to participate in a
> "free"dialogue " where the choice of receiving licensed mail is not
> with "my permission" The point here is that any license is a two way
> path and the recipient of the license is as much a partner in the
> process.

Why somewhat, you are an equal member of this list.
True, but then you are 'free' to 'ignore' the mail/mails as well.
Engaging in any conversation in real-life also has some ground-rules.
This is what I made for the self.

At the end of the day its a choice to each its own, this is the way I feel it.

> To more specifics about your CC License
> *Attribution. You must attribute the work in the manner specified by
> the author or licensor (but not in any way that suggests that they
> endorse you or your use of the work).*
>
> So eg. in a voice discussion of this mailing list and of any subjects
> you have mailed on am i supposed to say "please refer to website such
> and such " for more details of this licensed work ??

Not really, I wouldn't expect that, but can I always put up my website
as part of signature too ;)

> ***
> Start Quote
> *"For any reuse or distribution, you must make clear to others the
> license terms of this work. The best way to do this is with a link to
> this web page. "*
> end quote
>
> What constitues reuse or distribution -

> reuse - replying to your mails with your mail in full ??

I wish I could have a custom-made license but then it would be one
more license in the jungle of licenses.And as it is we have one too
many.

 What would be so much easier if you were able to only use relevant parts

> **
> or
> Start Quote
> * You are free:*
>
>    * to Share ? to copy, distribute and transmit the work
>    * to Remix ? to adapt the work
>
> End Quote
>
> Does my replying to your mails mean i have to quote your license -
>
> does my editing you mail constitute remixing your mail (original
> content) and does it mean that i have to include in my mail the link
> to the CC license website.

Don't think so.

> ***
> Getting silly it seems but then licenses , even CC licenses , if used
> inappropriately will get to be a bit silly.

Right. The problem is it inappropriate, you feel it is, I feel otherwise.

> ***
> So does all this make sense

It has been an enlightening discussion but then I'm also looking for answers.
If you can think of a more permissive, copyleft license which would also protect
my individual freedom while at the same time advertises CC without
devaluing the same, I am genuinely interested to hear the same.

Incidentally, from what I know just posting or mailing or doing
anything makes the
written word copyrighted to me.

> ram
-- 
 Regards,
 Shirish Agarwal
 This email is licensed under http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/

065C 6D79 A68C E7EA 52B3 8D70 950D 53FB 729A 8B17