Comments on: (c) 2005 All of humanity http://genaud.net/2005/10/c-2005-all-of-humanity/ genaud.net Fri, 13 Jan 2012 16:19:35 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0.4 By: is there a reason for this blog?™ :: Poetic License :: February :: 2009 http://genaud.net/2005/10/c-2005-all-of-humanity/comment-page-1/#comment-48453 is there a reason for this blog?™ :: Poetic License :: February :: 2009 Wed, 04 Mar 2009 17:50:21 +0000 http://blog.genaud.net/?p=5#comment-48453 [...] This and other neat licenses also at expatiari expatria [...] [...] This and other neat licenses also at expatiari expatria [...]

]]> By: is there a reason for this blog?™ :: :: February :: 2009 http://genaud.net/2005/10/c-2005-all-of-humanity/comment-page-1/#comment-48166 is there a reason for this blog?™ :: :: February :: 2009 Wed, 25 Feb 2009 22:03:04 +0000 http://blog.genaud.net/?p=5#comment-48166 [...] This and other neat licenses also at expatiari expatria [...] [...] This and other neat licenses also at expatiari expatria [...]

]]> By: Copenhagen :: (c) 2005 All of humanity :: October :: 2005 http://genaud.net/2005/10/c-2005-all-of-humanity/comment-page-1/#comment-13 Copenhagen :: (c) 2005 All of humanity :: October :: 2005 Fri, 10 Nov 2006 15:23:39 +0000 http://blog.genaud.net/?p=5#comment-13 [...] CPH Blog has moved [...] [...] CPH Blog has moved [...]

]]> By: Alex http://genaud.net/2005/10/c-2005-all-of-humanity/comment-page-1/#comment-11 Alex Fri, 10 Nov 2006 12:39:55 +0000 http://blog.genaud.net/?p=5#comment-11 Sharon, I posed my question to Creative Commons (as well as others, OSI, FSF, etc). It was an interesting thread with a few twists. The (”I’m not a lawer, but”) consensus was that all-of-humanity is equivalent to the public domain except that, debatably, any party could request royalties. I still hold that the implication is interesting because it implies the public domain in Europe where one may not relinquish ownership. I gather you were suggesting cc in respose to the three conditions: open, copy-left, and simple. However, what creative commons licenses fail to simply point out is that two works with different licenses can rarely be mixed together seemlessly. I find the existing creative commons licenses to be riddled with strings. When Stallman introduced the GPL, the share-alike clause seemed like a good idea to non-commercial developers. Fifteen years hence we find some surprising implications which may not be universally appropriate. Creative Commons, as noble a project as it is, may be solving a problem that doesn’t exist for media producers. It comes down to the ability to mix or go it alone. Any variation and condition imposed above the public domain makes nearly all licensed media incompatible unless they have the exact same cc license. It may take media producers fifteen more years to realize that. While most artists’ works will reach only a small, or no audience, artists tend to seek control for any commercial possibility. What they loose out on is the synergy that is only possible in a truly free environment (as in their own basement or studio). That environment (sharing with unknown contributors) had been nurtured in universities for decades in the case of software and can not be simply ported over to general media. Like Europeans post-WWII who believe their diplomatic unity can be applied universally, it is geeks (not artists) who believe open source can be applied to general media. As a geek, I can only hope artists, politicians, everyone will embrace the public domain. Alex Sharon,

I posed my question to Creative Commons (as well as others, OSI, FSF, etc). It was an interesting thread with a few twists. The (”I’m not a lawer, but”) consensus was that all-of-humanity is equivalent to the public domain except that, debatably, any party could request royalties. I still hold that the implication is interesting because it implies the public domain in Europe where one may not relinquish ownership.

I gather you were suggesting cc in respose to the three conditions: open, copy-left, and simple. However, what creative commons licenses fail to simply point out is that two works with different licenses can rarely be mixed together seemlessly.

I find the existing creative commons licenses to be riddled with strings. When Stallman introduced the GPL, the share-alike clause seemed like a good idea to non-commercial developers. Fifteen years hence we find some surprising implications which may not be universally appropriate. Creative Commons, as noble a project as it is, may be solving a problem that doesn’t exist for media producers. It comes down to the ability to mix or go it alone. Any variation and condition imposed above the public domain makes nearly all licensed media incompatible unless they have the exact same cc license. It may take media producers fifteen more years to realize that.

While most artists’ works will reach only a small, or no audience, artists tend to seek control for any commercial possibility. What they loose out on is the synergy that is only possible in a truly free environment (as in their own basement or studio). That environment (sharing with unknown contributors) had been nurtured in universities for decades in the case of software and can not be simply ported over to general media.

Like Europeans post-WWII who believe their diplomatic unity can be applied universally, it is geeks (not artists) who believe open source can be applied to general media. As a geek, I can only hope artists, politicians, everyone will embrace the public domain.

Alex

]]> By: kubo http://genaud.net/2005/10/c-2005-all-of-humanity/comment-page-1/#comment-10 kubo Fri, 10 Nov 2006 12:39:29 +0000 http://blog.genaud.net/?p=5#comment-10 hey alex, i didn’t see this in your discussion, wouldn’t this answer the need? check out their modular licenses. http://creativecommons.org/ sk hey alex, i didn’t see this in your discussion, wouldn’t this answer the need? check out their modular licenses.

http://creativecommons.org/

sk

]]>