[Community] Fwd: <nettime> Richard Stallman "no longer endorses" Creative Commons

[meroni davide]

Inizio del messaggio inoltrato:

> Da: Florian Cramer <cantsin a zedat.fu-berlin.de>
> Data: 08 febbraio 2006 13:54:54 CET
> A: Nettime <nettime-l a bbs.thing.net>
> Oggetto: <nettime> Richard Stallman "no longer endorses" Creative 
> Commons
> Rispondere-A: Florian Cramer <cantsin a 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 a bbs.thing.net and "info nettime-l" in the msg 
> body
> #  archive: http://www.nettime.org contact: nettime a bbs.thing.net
>
-------------- parte successiva --------------
Un allegato non testuale è stato rimosso....
Nome:        non disponibile
Tipo:        text/enriched
Dimensione:  4521 bytes
Descrizione: non disponibile
URL:         <http://creativecommons.it/pipermail/community/attachments/20060209/50cdf935/attachment-0002.bin>