I forgot to add these links to spread the word: https://identi.ca/notice/96323620 https://twitter.com/dustyweb/status/240110061614141440
http://www.reddit.com/r/freeculture/duplicates/ywpr3/stop_the_inclusion_of_proprietary_licenses_in/ https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4437919 (not sure why they didn't submit the original) On Mon, Aug 27, 2012 at 11:21 AM, Danny Piccirillo < [email protected]> wrote: > via: > http://freeculture.org/blog/2012/08/27/stop-the-inclusion-of-proprietary-licenses-in-creative-commons-4-0/ > > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > From: Students for Free Culture <[email protected]> > Date: Mon, Aug 27, 2012 at 3:15 AM > Subject: [FC-discuss] Stop the inclusion of proprietary licenses in > Creative Commons 4.0 > To: [email protected] > > > Over the past several years, Creative Commons has increasingly > recommended free culture licenses over non-free ones. Now that the > drafting process for version 4.0 of their license set is in full gear, > this is a “[a once-in-a-decade-or-more opportunity][1]” to deprecate the > proprietary NonCommercial and NoDerivatives clauses. This is the best > chance we have to dramatically shift the direction of Creative Commons > to be fully aligned with the [definition of free cultural works][2] by > preventing the inheritance of these proprietary clauses in CC 4.0′s > final release. > > The concept of free culture has its roots in the history of free > software (popularly marketed as "open source software"), and it’s an > important philosophical underpinning to the CC license set. As with free > software, the word "free" in free culture means free as in freedom, not > as in price, but Creative Commons has not [set or adhered to any > standard or promise of rights][3] or taken [any ethical position][4] in > their support of a free culture. The definition of free cultural works > describes the necessary freedoms to ensure that media monopolies cannot > form to restrict the creative and expressive freedoms of others and > outlines [which restrictions are permissible or not][5]. Although > Creative Commons provides non-free licenses, the fact that they > recognize the definition reveals a willingness and even desire to > change. > > Creative Commons started off by focusing much more on flexibility for > rightsholders, but since its early days, the organization has moved away > from that position. Several projects and licenses have been retired such > as the Sampling, Founders' Copyright, and Developing Nations License. > It's obvious that something like Founders' Copyright which keeps "all > rights reserved" for 14 years (before releasing into the public domain) > is not promoting free culture. Giving rightsholders more options and > easier ways to choose what rights they want to give others actually > reinforces permission culture, creates a fragmented commons, and takes > away freedom from all cultural participants. > > **What's wrong with NC and ND?** > > The two proprietary clauses remaining in the CC license set are > [NonCommercial][6] (NC) and [NoDerivatives][7] (ND), and it is time > Creative Commons stopped supporting them, too. Neither of them provide > better protection against misappropriation than free culture licenses. > The ND clause survives on the idea that rightsholders would not > otherwise be able protect their reputation or preserve the integrity of > their work, but all these [fears about allowing derivatives][8] are > either permitted by fair use anyway or already protected by free > licenses. The [NC clause is vague][9] and survives entirely on two even > more misinformed ideas. First is rightsholders' fear of giving up their > copy monopolies on commercial use, but what would be considered > commercial use is necessarily ambiguous. Is distributing the file on a > website which profits from ads a commercial use? [Where is the line > drawn][10] between commercial and non-commercial use? In the end, it > really isn't. It does not increase the potential profit from work and it > does not provide any better protection than than Copyleft does (using > the ShareAlike clause on its own, which is a free culture license). > > The second idea is the misconception that NC is anti-property or anti- > privatization. This comes from the name NonCommercial which implies a > Good Thing (non-profit), but it's function is counter-intuitive and > completely antithetical to free culture (it [retains a commercial > monopoly][11] on the work). That is what it comes down to. The NC clause > is actually the closest to traditional "all rights reserved" copyright > because it treats creative and intellectual expressions as private > property. Maintaining commercial monopolies on cultural works only > enables middlemen to continue enforcing outdated business models and the > restrictions they depend on. We can only evolve beyond that if we > abandon commercial monopolies, eliminating the possibility of middlemen > amassing control over vast pools of our culture. > > Most importantly, though, is that both clauses do not actually > contribute to a shared commons. They oppose it. The fact that the ND > clause [prevents cultural participants from building upon works][12] > should be a clear reason to eliminate it from the Creative Commons > license set. The ND clause is already the least popular, and > discouraging remixing is obviously contrary to a free culture. The > NonCommercial clause, on the other hand, is even more problematic > because it is not so obvious in its proprietary nature. While it has > always been a popular clause, it's use has been in slow and steady > decline. > > Practically, the NC clause only functions to cause problems for > collaborative and remixed projects. It prevents them from being able to > fund themselves and locks them into a proprietary license forever. For > example, if Wikipedia were under a NC license, it would be [impossible > to sell printed or CD copies of Wikipedia][13] and reach communities > without internet access because every single editor of Wikipedia would > need to give permission for their work to be sold. The project would > need to survive off of donations (which Wikipedia has proven possible), > but this is much more difficult and completely unreasonable for almost > all projects, especially for physical copies. Retaining support for NC > and ND in CC 4.0 would give them much more weight, making it extremely > difficult to retire them later, and continue to feed the fears that > nurture a permission culture.**** > > **Why does this need to happen now?** > > People have been vocal about this issue for a long time, and awareness > of the problematic nature of ND and NC has been spreading, especially in > the areas of [Open Educational Resources][14] (such as OpenCourseWare) > and [Open Access to research][15]. With the percentage of CC-licensed > works that permit remixing and commercial use having [doubled][16] since > Creative Commons' first year, it's clear that there is a growing > recognition that the non-free license clauses are not actually > necessary, or even good. > > Both NC and ND are incompatible with free licenses and many, if not the > vast majority, of NC and ND licensed works will not be relicensed after > CC 4.0, so the longer it takes to phase out those clauses, the more > works will be locked into a proprietary license. There will never be a > better time than this. Creative Commons has been shifting away from non- > free licenses for several years, but if it does not abandon them > entirely it will fail as a commons and [divide our culture][17] into > disconnected parts, each with its own distinct licence, rights and > permissions granted by the copyright holders who 'own' the works. > > In December of 2006, Creative Commons implemented a subtle difference > between the pages for free culture and non-free licenses: green and > yellow background graphics (compare [Attribution-ShareAlike][18] to > [Attribution-NonCommercial][19]). This was also when they began using > license buttons that include license property icons, so that there would > be an immediate visual cue as to the specific license being used before > clicking through to the deed. In February of 2008, they began using a > seal on free culture licenses that said "[Approved for Free Cultural > Works][20]", which was another great step in the right direction. In > July of this year, Creative Commons released a [completely redesigned > license chooser][21] that explicitly says whether the configuration > being used is free culture or not. This growing acknowledgement of free > vs. non-free licenses was a crucial development, since being under a > Creative Commons license is so often equated with being a free cultural > work. Now, retiring the NC and ND clauses is a critical step in Creative > Commons' progress towards taking a pro-freedom approach. > > The NC and ND clauses not only depend on, but also feed misguided > notions about their purpose and function. With that knowledge, it would > be a mistake not to retire them. Creative Commons should not depend on > and nurture rightsholders' fears of misappropriation to entice them into > choosing non-free CC licenses. Instead of wasting effort maintaining and > explaining a wider set of conflicting licenses, Creative Commons as an > organization should focus on providing better and more consistent > support for the licenses that really make sense. We are in the perfect > position to finally create a unified and undivided commons. Creative > Commons is at a crossroads.This decisive moment will in all likelihood > bind their direction either being stuck serving the fears that validate > permission culture or creating a shared commons between all cultural > participants. > > We don't want the next generation of the free culture movement to be > saddled with the dichotomies of the past; we want our efforts to be > spent fighting the next battles.**** > > **What should we do? ** > > There have been lots of discussions on the CC-license list about > promoting free culture licenses and discouraging proprietary ones. A > couple of proposals have been made to encourage the use of free licenses > over the non-free ones. > > One is a rebranding of the non-free licenses. They could be > differentiated in a much more significant way than it currently is, such > as referring to NC and ND as the "Restricted Commons" or "Limited > Commons" or some variant thereof. License buttons could also be color > coded in the same way that license pages are (green for free culture > licenses, yellow for proprietary ones). Another proposal is to rename > NonCommercial to something more honest such as CommercialMonopoly. > > While these proposals and other ideas are certainly worth supporting, we > should not lose sight on our ultimate goal: for Creative Commons to stop > supporting non-free licenses. We should not feel like this is impossible > to achieve at this point, as it will be much more difficult to do later. > More people than ever are starting to advocate against proprietary CC > licenses, and there is clear evidence and reasoning behind these > arguments. We have the power to prevent the inclusion of non-free > clauses in this upcoming version of the Creative Commons License set. > > To join us in resisting the inclusion of proprietary clauses in CC 4.0, > there are a few important things you can do: > > * Send a letter to the [Creative Commons Board of Directors][22] about > your concerns. > > * Publish your letter or a blog post on the issue (and send it to the > list below) > > * Join the Creative Commons licenses development list to participate > in discussions of the 4.0 draft: > [http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-licenses][23] > > * Contribute to the CC 4.0 wiki pages: > [http://wiki.creativecommons.org/4.0][24] > > [1]: http://governancexborders.com/2011/09/17/cc-global-summit-2011 > -pt-iii-discussing-the-non-commmercial-module/<http://governancexborders.com/2011/09/17/cc-global-summit-2011%0A-pt-iii-discussing-the-non-commmercial-module/> > > [2]: http://freedomdefined.org/Definition > > [3]: http://mako.cc/writing/toward_a_standard_of_freedom.html > > [4]: http://mako.cc/copyrighteous/20040917-00 > > [5]: http://freedomdefined.org/Permissible_restrictions > > [6]: http://freedomdefined.org/Licenses/NC > > [7]: http://robmyers.org/2010/02/21/why_nd_is_neither_necessary_nor_s > ufficient_to_prevent_misrepresentation/<http://robmyers.org/2010/02/21/why_nd_is_neither_necessary_nor_s%0Aufficient_to_prevent_misrepresentation/> > > [8]: https://creativecommons.org/weblog/entry/26549 > > [9]: http://news.cnet.com/8301-13556_3-9823336-61.html > > [10]: http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/cc- > licenses/2005-April/002215.html > > [11]: http://robmyers.org/2008/02/24/noncommercial-sharealike-is-not- > copyleft/<http://robmyers.org/2008/02/24/noncommercial-sharealike-is-not-%0Acopyleft/> > > [12]: http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110704/15235514961/shouldnt- > free-mean-same-thing-whether-followed-culture-software.shtml<http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110704/15235514961/shouldnt-%0Afree-mean-same-thing-whether-followed-culture-software.shtml> > > [13]: > https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Licensing/Justifications > > [14]: http://kefletcher.blogspot.com/2011/10/why-not-nc-non- > commercial.html > > [15]: http://www.plosbiology.org/article/info:doi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal > .pbio.1001210 > > [16]: https://creativecommons.org/weblog/entry/28041 > > [17]: > http://www.freesoftwaremagazine.com/articles/commons_without_commonality > > [18]: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/ > > [19]: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/ > > [20]: https://creativecommons.org/weblog/entry/8051 > > [21]: https://creativecommons.org/weblog/entry/33430 > > [22]: mailto:Hal%20Abelson%20%3Chal%40mit.edu%3E%2C%20Glenn%20Otis%20 > Brown%20%3Cgotisbrown%40gmail.com%3E%2C%20Michael%20Carroll%20%3Cmcarrol > l%40wcl.american.edu%3E%2C%20Catherine%20Casserly%20%3Ccathy%40creativec > ommons.org%3E%2C%20Caterina%20Fake%20%3Ccaterina%40caterina.net%3E%2C%20 > Brian%20Fitzgerald%20%3Cbrian.fitzgerald%40acu.edu.au%3E%2C%20Davis%20Gu > ggenheim%20%3Cakhawkins%40mac.com%3E%2C%20Joi%20Ito%20%3Cjoi%40ito.com%3 > E%2C%20Lawrence%20Lessig%20%3Clessig%40pobox.com%3E%2C%20Laurie%20Racine > %20%3Cracine%40lulu.com%3E%2C%20Eric%20Saltzman%20%3Cesaltzman%40pobox.c > om%3E%2C%20Annette%20Thomas%20%3CAnnette%40macmillan.co.uk%3E%2C%20Molly > %20Van%20Houweling%20%3Cmsvh%40pobox.com%3E%2C%20Jimmy%20Wales%20%3Cjwal > es%40wikia.com%3E%2C%20Esther%20Wojcicki%20%3Cesther%40creativecommons.o > rg%3E%2C%20 > > [23]: http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-licenses > > [24]: http://wiki.creativecommons.org/4.0 > > URL: > http://freeculture.org/blog/2012/08/27/stop-the-inclusion-of-proprietary-licenses-in-creative-commons-4-0/ > _______________________________________________ > Discuss mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.freeculture.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss > FAQ: http://wiki.freeculture.org/Fc-discuss > > >
