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 > > <[email protected]> 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 above. 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 licensing). > Overall the movements have way too low expectations for both freedom > and cultural relevance. Please explain? -- Pozdrawiam Michał "rysiek" Woźniak Fundacja Wolnego i Otwartego Oprogramowania
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
