!@!Re: [Upd-discuss] On the 'Creative Commons': A Critique of the Commons without Commonalty

[Michael Hart]

On Mon, 11 Jul 2005, Richard M. Stallman wrote:

>    > "We argue that the Creative Commons project on the whole fails to
>    > confront and look beyond the logic and power asymmetries of the
>    > present. It tends to conflate how the world is with what it could
>    > be, with that we might want to be."
>
> That is stated in such an abstract way that I can only form a vague
> idea of what their critique is.

Talk about the pot calling the kettle black!

*

Calling for logic and a look at the assymetries of the power structure
could hardly be be more clear.

As far as I can tell, the entire open source movement, whether you are
tracing it back through programming to Stallman or though eBooks to me,
is based on the logic of creating the symmetrical power structure only
available through putting things on the Internet for all to download.

I can't see what possible problem RMS could have with this.


>    In other words CC are taking practical action with a realworld effect
>    rather than flouncing about doing ideological dreamwork to impress
>    both their readers.

Obviously there is a grave concern about the difference betwen "flouncing"
and working for "realworld effect."

Creative Commons is more into legalisms than "practical action with a
realworld effect". . .sorry, but writing legal papers just isn't going
to cut it unless they actually create that "practical action with a
realworld effect."

RMS has more "realworld effect" every time he releases a new program
than most political or legal papers writers have in their whole lives.


> While it is hard for me to tell what the first quote does mean, I
> don't think your paraphrase is correct.

Again, more of the pot calling the kettle black.

If you have a point to make, RMS, please just make it,
but please stop muddying the waters by saying that no
one else makes sense.


>    I'm sure dreamwork is more fun, but this isn't another area where we
>    need theory to eclipse engagement. "Not academic enough" isn't a
>    criticism I've heard of CC before.
>
> I have not seen anyone say that now.  I think their article is too
> academic, and thus hard to understand, so if readers misunderstand it
> that's partly their fault.  But I don't think that they are calling on
> Creative Commons to be more "academic" than it is, or to have less
> "realworld effect" than it has.
>
> I think they're concerned about the issue that also concerns me:

> What direction is Creative Commons trying to head in?
>
> What kind of realworld effect is it aiming for?

Yes, I would agree that these are the "real" questions,
but I am afraid that the "realworld" answer is not to
hold your breath waiting to find out, but to take the
real world bit between your teeth and get something done,
just as Stallman has done in that arena, not to be confused
with his intentionlly confusing message in the political arena.

"Just Do It!"

;-)

Michael