Greg bond wrote:
> Oh good grief. I'm aware of the difference between
Of course you are, Greg. I'm not suggesting you don't.
Please lower your
pugnacity setting. 
> assigning copyright versus licenseing copyrights.
> The FSF has a number of works that are *licensed* GPL
> but FSF requires that contributers *assign* rights
> to them. They were doing this long before CC came
> around.
Actually, I thought of mentioning that as an example of the
distinction,
but it's a little off point. The point is that artists see
certain
formulaic expressions to do with rights transactions, and
their
experience will tend to lead them to knee-jerk assumptions
if certain
formulas are evoked.
A lead-in to a website is very sensitive to this kind of
thing, because
you're trying to attract new people who may only skim the
first few
lines before deciding whether to keep reading or buzz off to
some other
topic. So if it does have this effect to use a certain
expression, then
it's a valid concern.
> But Dana and I weren't arguing about "assign"
vs "license",
> we were arguing *freedom* versus *rights*.
The key point is that you were in fact "arguing"
and not "having a
constructive conversation".
Dana has revealed what may be his real concern -- the reason
for the
resistance. This is possibly an opening to a more
constructive line of
discussion, and we should thank him for doing that instead
of just
continuing to resist on a specious foundation.
> So, Dana is saying that there is a difference between
> rights and freedoms. that you "license
freedoms" and
> you "transfer rights".
Actually, no, he didn't say that. He said that artists would
be confused
because of *connotations* of these words, due to their use
in other
contexts. That suggests that the real problem isn't with the
word
"rights", but with evoking a linguistic formula
that he considers
undesireable.
Therefore, I attempted to rephrase the opening in the terms
of the
specific formulas that I *know* that artists and writers are
familiar
with (because I am one, and I read a lot of writers'
guidelines).
> That's a totally bogus distinction.
It's a connotative distinction, which is not quite the same
as saying
that it is "bogus". So now we have a new problem
-- resolve the
ambiguous and offensive (to some of us, anyway) usage
without creating
undesirable connotations.
That's the kind of problem I like to solve, so I'm doing my
best.
> Copyright doesn't
> grant authors a list of exclusive rights and a list of
> exclusive freedoms. Copyright grants authors some
exclusive
> rights, and they can license or transfer or do
whatever
> the hell they want with them. What they *do* wasn't the
point.
It may not have been your point, because what you are now
doing is
trying to *win* an *argument*. But that's not going
anywhere, Greg.
So let's try a new tack, along the lines of "what would
be a better
opening".
> The point was that they are all exclusive *rights*,
> not exclusive "freedoms". Therefore,
"freedom" is an
> inappropriate and inaccurate term for CC to use when
> talking about their licenses in general,
> because some of their licenses have nothing to
> do with freedom.
Yep. So let's not use it that way.
> And my question to Dana still stands:
It's really more of a "challenge" than a
"question" at this point.
> Show me how the first line of the front page of the
> CC website is more accurate to say "freedom"
than
> "rights".
It isn't, and I've already agreed with you, Greg. However,
the alternate
formulation with "rights" has a connotation that
CC wishes to avoid (or
at least that's how Dana feels).
That's an actual answer to the question you *did* ask, Greg
-- which was
what 'was wrong with saying "rights"'.
> No doubt, the language could be modified to some
> alternative so that the result avoids the word
> "freedom" and replaces it with the word
"rights",
> and it would be a much more accurate description.
>
> Your suggestion is much more clear than the current
> opening, and it is automatically clear that not all
> CC licenses have anything to do with freedom.
So, actually, after hitting me with a lot of flak, you're
actually
saying you *like* my suggestion, then? :-D Awesome!
> # "CC licenses grant a range of non-exclusive
rights
> # to the public at large, in a modular way, ranging
> # from near total control (By-NC-ND) to near total
> # freedom (By)."
>
> I don't care how it's worded. I just don't want the
> word "freedom" used in an ambiguous and
confusing way.
Yes, and I agree with you. And since people who feel as we
do about this
are (I hope) an important "core market" for CC, I
think it's fair to ask
that our sensitivities in this regard be respected.
Acknowledging, however, that there are other important
market segments
who might be disturbed by a simple
"freedoms->rights" substitution, I
suggest an alternative that bears in mind the sensibilities
of jobbing
artists and writers. I kind of also like the idea of making
clear the
whole "not all CC licenses are 'free'" and
"spectrum of rights" concepts
right from the beginning. That creates a useful frame for
understanding
what follows, IMHO. It also presents an accurate depiction
of the real
factions in the community.
So the question now, is "is the rewording attractive to
anyone who
actually has the power to change it?"
IOW, can we turn this 'fight' into a constructive change?
Otherwise, we're just kind of blowing a lot of smoke to no
purpose here.
I mean a good flame war can be fun in its way, but fixing
something
that's broken is even more fun, IMHO.
Cheers,
Terry
--
Terry Hancock (hancock AnansiSpaceworks.com)
Anansi Spaceworks http://www.AnansiSpac
eworks.com
_______________________________________________
cc-licenses mailing list
cc-licenseslists.ibiblio.org
http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-licenses
|
