[okfn-discuss] Re: Open data licensing

[Rufus Pollock]

Nate Olson wrote:
> This sounds like a good idea, both to clear away current confusion and 
> to improve understanding on new issues as they arise. And as you 
> suggest, the work done here could pretty seamlessly be tied in with 
> other OKF project areas.

Thanks -- there are plenty of TODOs on:

   http://okfn.org/wiki/OpenDataLicensing

so feel free to dive in and contribute.

> Something that might be worth inclusion is a brief overview of Creative 
> Commons--not so much its philosophy as its practical function. More to 
> the point, I'd like to see a thorough diagnosis of CC's shortcomings, 
> framed in terms of constructive criticism, of wanting to ensure it's as 
> relevant and as resilient as possible. I say this as someone who, like 
> most, isn't too familiar with IP laws and customs, and who regards CC in 
> a rather uncritical light as the "people's champ" fighting various 
> bogeymen. But that's obviously not healthy over the long term.

Really interesting point Nate -- and something I've been discussing a 
lot. Simply put I'm not sure CC itself is anybody's champ -- their line, 
in general, has been that they are just license providers and not 
campaigners (what causes confusion is the wonderful name: 'Creative 
Commons' which suggests these guys are somehow in charge of developing 
some wonderful open shared cultural space).

To cause further confusion there are prominent people involved with CC 
who clearly do have a clear agenda for change (Larry Lessig for example) 
which at the very least appears to involve reducing some overextended 
parts of the IP 'tree'. Furthermore you'll find plenty of people 
involved with 'open' stuff in the cultural domain who are either part 
of, or in contact with CC (myself for example). It also seems that 
iCommons is trying to become more of a 'free culture' community than it 
was before though there is some uncertainty as to what iCommons is 
trying to do (and whether what they are doing is a good idea) -- see for 
example Tom Chance's comments on the iCommons meeting last year in Rio[1].

[1]: http://software.newsforge.com/software/06/07/03/1510252.shtml

But all of that said CC itself isn't really a movement -- its an 
organization to provide licenses. Even if one were to think it was a 
movement it is clearly only one group amongst many (EFF, downhill 
battle, Free Culture US, Free Culture UK, Wikipedia ....).

> Here's one recent item that jarred me a little bit in this regard 
> (although this is *not* all that constructive!):
> 
> http://blog.fawny.org/2007/05/15/anticommons/

This seems rather over-aggressive and I'm not sure of his point -- if he 
didn't want to assign copyright in this way he didn't need to 
participate in the Transit Camp (and ad hominem attacks on Cory Doctorow 
aren't that helpful). Furthermore he seems to equating CC as an org 
providing licenses with CC as an ORG persuading everyone that they 
should use them (which while perhaps a fine line is a line that exists).

> For starters, can anyone point to existing writing on CC's pros/cons 
> that they find particularly thoughtful, and accessible to a general 
> audience?

Again this comes back to the question of what is CC? As an org providing 
license choice it seems incronvertible that it is 'a good thing'. If you 
see CC as embodying the ideas of copyright reform well that is quite 
different and if you see as being the leader of a worldwide 'Free 
Culture' movement that is another thing again.

~rufus