[Foundation-l] Problems with the new license TOS
cimonavaro at gmail.com
Fri Apr 17 04:45:36 UTC 2009
> On Thu, Apr 16, 2009 at 3:22 PM, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen <cimonavaro at gmail.com
>> Jussi-Ville Heiskanen wrote:
>>> Anthony wrote:
>>>> Are you strongly opposed to all types of "intellectual property"? Vote
>>>> the change.
>> I don't see how this is warranted. As it stands the TOS proposed
>> is certainly semantically confusing, but hardly in stark opposition
>> to intellectual property. In fact Lawrence Lessig is on record as
>> stating taht CC licenses *depend* on intellectual property rights,
>> even if their purport is to maximally facilitate unlimited re-use, and
>> keeping the content in play for re-use.
> How would you suggest someone strongly opposed to all types of "intellectual
> property" should vote, then? Considering that the main proponent of the
> proposal, Erik Moeller, is strongly opposed to all types of "intellectual
> property", it seems like a given that someone else who feels similarly
> should vote in favor of the move.
I don't consider Moeller the main proponent of the current
proposal in any meaningful way; except in the very narrow
sense that Moeller is admirably acting to employ "the art
of the possible", and therefore is doing the work of moving
the compromise, that happens to be most viable, forward.
I think it isn't public knowledge what Erik's full personal
feelings on the current proposal are, as it is under vote.
>>>> Do you believe that the right to attribution is a fundamental natural
>>>> which is held by individuals and cannot be alienated by majority vote?
>>>> against the change, or refuse to vote at all.
>> Now this is just simply beyond the pale. You know full well that the
>> license as such is implicitly BY.
> The proposal contains much more than just a switch to CC-BY-SA, it also
> includes language interpreting CC-BY-SA in a way which indisputably changes
> the form of attribution required.
I don't think the word "indisputably" means what you think it does.
Even if I agree on a very broad level that the phrasing is mildly
confusing to our re-users, and certainly not ideal, I think there have
been arguments defending the view that there isn't a change of form
for attribution which goes beyond what the license allows. I am not
convinced that those defensive arguments are wholly safe in the
absolute, but this does not mean I don't accept that others may think
I will just agree to disagree with them on that point, and keep
stipulating publicly that it is a remote possibility that where
the failure point of those arguments would be, if any, would ever
in practice come into play.
More information about the foundation-l