<nettime> Richard Stallman "no longer endorses" Creative Commons

[Florian Cramer <cantsin@zedat.fu-berlin.de>]

[I think RMS makes a valid and well argued point here, very similar btw.
to critical opinions about CC voiced on Nettime. Note that even RMS's 
view that "some Creative Commons licenses are free licenses" is not
shared by everyone (see http://people.debian.org/~evan/ccsummary.html)
in the free software community. -F]


>From <http://www.linuxp2p.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=10771>:

LinuxP2P: In the last couple of years, independent media and
entertainment seems has grown immensely. Just last week,
CreativeCommons.org passed the 200000 mp3s indexed milestone. Most
independent music, movies etc., use Creative Commons licensing.

A lot of the independent artwork has been spread through P2P (Using
legal independent artistry sites such as Jamendo.com and ccMixter.org,
as well as manually by the artists themselves.). Apart from the obvious,
which is that the GPL is written to cover software, what differences are
there between generic CC licensing and the GPL?

   RMS: I have already explained the patent problem of MP3 format.

   As your question illustrates, people have a tendency to disregard the
   differences between the various Creative Commons licenses, lumping
   them together as a single thing. That is as mixed-up as supposing San
   Francisco and Death Valley have similar weather because they're both
   in California.

   Some Creative Commons licenses are free licenses; most permit at
   least noncommercial verbatim copying. But some, such as the Sampling
   Licenses and Developing Countries Licenses, don't even permit that,
   which makes them unacceptable to use for any kind of work. All these
   licenses have in common is a label, but people regularly mistake that
   common label for something substantial.

   I no longer endorse Creative Commons. I cannot endorse Creative
   Commons as a whole, because some of its licenses are unacceptable. It
   would be self-delusion to try to endorse just some of the Creative
   Commons licenses, because people lump them together; they will
   misconstrue any endorsement of some as a blanket endorsement of
   all. I therefore find myself constrained to reject Creative Commons
   entirely.

   Does Creative Commons publish the number of music files that are
   released under Creative Commons licenses that DO permit noncommercial
   sharing of copies? If so, could you give that number?

LinuxP2P wrote: Apart from the obvious, which is that the GPL is written
to cover software,

   It may seem obvious, but it's not true. The GNU GPL is written
   primarily for software, but it can be used for any kind of
   work. However, its requirements are inconvenient for works that one
   might want to print and publish in a book, so I don't recommend using
   it for manuals, or for novels.

LinuxP2P wrote: what differences are there between generic CC licensing
and the GPL?

   Nothing meaningful can be said about "generic CC licensing"--those
   licenses are more different than similar.  The first step in thinking
   clearly about those licenses is to discuss them separately.

LinuxP2P: Can the GPL be applied to artwork? For example, most of the
people who submit wallpapers to KDE-Look.org submit them under the GPL,
would the GPL's terms still apply, considering it isn't software.

   RMS: There must be some basic misunderstanding here. If a work is
   released under the GPL, then the GPL's terms apply to it. How could
   it possibly be otherwise?

-- 
http://cramer.plaintext.cc:70
gopher://cramer.plaintext.cc




#  distributed via <nettime>: no commercial use without permission
#  <nettime> is a moderated mailing list for net criticism,
#  collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets
#  more info: majordomo@bbs.thing.net and "info nettime-l" in the msg body
#  archive: http://www.nettime.org contact: nettime@bbs.thing.net