[FC-discuss] ccLearn intern position at Creative Commons

[Crosbie Fitch]

> From: Fred Benenson
> First, Creative Commons created and maintains both the CC-BY 
> and CC-BY- 
> SA licenses, which I assume you consider part of free culture.

Licences are tools to permit/restore liberties suspended by copyright.

It is possible to craft licences that restore permission to very nearly all
the liberties otherwise suspended by copyright.

The GPL comes very close.

CC-SA is the most restorative of all the CC licences.

CC licences are widely recognised.

They are as much a part of free culture as copyright is.

Which is similar to saying keys are as much a part of liberty as manacles
are. Keys can be used to lock as well as unlock. They aren't intrinsically
liberating, but merely used to moderate restraint.

So, no, CC and their licenses are not part of free culture - even if one or
two of their licenses have utility to producers of free culture.

> Second, CC fosters and promotes these licenses and 
> exploration of the goals cental to free culture.

I can agree that "CC fosters and promotes these licenses", but I see very
little exploration of the goals central to free culture - unless you mean
Lessig's book?

> Just because the organization doesn't narrowly and singlemindedly  
> promote your own personal and particular definition of "free culture"  
> doesn't mean they don't have anything to do with it.

Semantically true, but I think the question is "What DO they have to do with
it?"

> Moreover, it  
> doesn't mean that people on this list won't be interested to hear  
> about opportunites regarding CC.

Also semantically true. It also doesn't mean that people on this list won't
be interested to hear about opportunities in Burger King.

> Would you consider the FSF having something to do with free culture?

Only in the specific field of software - software being culture.

> Despite their publishing non-free licenses such as the GFDL w/  
> invariant sections?

It is their mission of freedom in the class of works known as software that
has relevance, not the non-free licences they may produce.

CC has no mission of freedom in any field. The closest it comes in using the
word 'freedom' is in the author's freedom of choice - as in the slave
owner's freedom of choice.

> And despite all of their licenses, just like all  
> of the CC licenses, depending on copyright?

The GPL doesn't depend upon copyright, it neutralises it by harnessing its
force against itself.

Ask Richard Stallman if given a choice between copyright abolition (with no
software patents) and the status quo with a copyright based GPL, which
alternative he'd opt for.

> Can you supply some other organizations that aren't "copyright  
> advocacy" organizations that would be of interest to this list?

Free Culture.org (open to question)
http://www.againstmonopoly.org
http://www.eff.org (not 100% sure they're not copyright advocates)
http://questioncopyright.org
http://www.downhillbattle.org