[ubuntu-in] WHY CC Licensing is not a good idea (Was Looking for a flat-bed scanner in the 6-7k range)

[Sanjay Bhangar]

On Wed, May 28, 2008 at 1:34 AM, Ramnarayan. K <ramnarayan.k at gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi Shirish,
>
> thanks for saying its not a flame war - it isn't and needn't get that way.
>
/me jumps into the fire! :-)

> So to the issue
>
> 1. Why do you think licensing your mails would give people a better
> idea about CC licensing. Why will a foot note or link or some other
> creative idea be better.
>
> 2..Apart from advertising CC licensing - is there any other reason to
> license your mail - to this list or generally.
>
Ram, I think the problem is that under most copyright law, anything
that is not explicitly licensed, is assumed to be Copyright the
creator - not sure if that applies to emails, but it does apply to
artistic works and code - which is why we must explicitly specify an
alternative license if we do not want the work to be "assumed
Copyrighted" under law. This is why I'd explicitly license all my code
GPL, even though I really don't care what people do with it, of
course, that protects me from them copyrighting my code as well - but
I think the basic problem is that most international copyright law
works such that if a work does not explicitly mention a license,
"Copyright All Rights Reserved" is assumed. Therefore, one must
specify an alternate license if one does not want one's work to be
Copyright.

I do find the idea of specifying a license for emails extremely silly
as well;), but I don't think it is purely a decorative artifact... I
think it might be nice to have perhaps a simpler license that can be
specific to emails that's a lot less complicated, potentially
restrictive as CC...  ? I don't agree with a lot of the tenets of CC,
but remember - not specifying a license does NOT mean "no license
attached" - it generally means "Copyright All Rights Reserved" under
law -- and perhaps to combat a silly system, sometimes we must be
silly ourselves :-)

just my two bits
/me didn't start the fire :-)
-Sanjay




> Would you license your mail(s) under any other Copyright law / system-
> i think not - why because the process is too cumbersome and maybe it
> might even cost some. So the ease in which one can Creative Common
> License anything gives it an inverse power over copyright and its free
> to boot. However with freedom comes great power and with great power
> comes even greater accountability- cliched yes but common no.
>
> Would your copyrighted email (under regular copyright laws) be
> acceptable to this list and to the other equal users ???
>
> The question is are you licensing your mails because you can or
> because you have a need. If you feel that your mails need to be
> licensed - as envisaged by the
> thought and /or philosophy that underwrites the concept of CC
> licensing then really its your choice.
>
> On the question of why it devalues the concept of CC licensing - my
> opinion (and other may add - agree / disagree??)  is because CC
> licensing was sought as an alternative to the restrictive Copyright
> and proprietory system that exists. Its value is that it provides the
> opportunity and freedom to express ones creativity and at the same
> time have a way of opening the creative work (or any work) to a larger
> community without the "normal" shackles. It seeks to provide an
> alternative but not necessarily to make it easier to license anything.
>
> Today you are (maybe) posting from a laptop / desktop computer -
> tomorrow it may be through a pda / phone and that could extend to a
> note with every sms you send - or freedom forbid at the end of every
> phone call we get a recorded message saying that this conversation is
> CC licensed.
>
> So the bad habit comes in when the freedom of CC licensing is
> trivialised by it being used for anything and everything rather than
> for those works which actually need that kind of licensing.
>
> The concept of GNU/LInux , CC, FOSS or whatever other philosophy you
> would like to follow is free speech and freedom of speech. Any license
> however liberal , even CC  is a form of restriction.
>
> In our digital life we anyways have to subscribe to a vareity of
> licenses or choose to violate a few, and that is mostly at our
> discretion or choice. but in this case
> we are an involuntary /unwilling receipient of your licensed mail and
> also as a somewhat equal member of this ubuntu list kind of take
> objection to having a licensed mail thrust at me - - it can be seen
> as a violation of my right to "free speech" and to participate in a
> "free"dialogue " where the choice of receiving licensed mail is not
> with "my permission" The point here is that any license is a two way
> path and the recipient of the license is as much a partner in the
> process.
>
> To more specifics about your CC License
> *Attribution. You must attribute the work in the manner specified by
> the author or licensor (but not in any way that suggests that they
> endorse you or your use of the work).*
>
> So eg. in a voice discussion of this mailing list and ofany subjects
> you have mailed on am i supposed to say "please refer to website such
> and such " for more details of this licensed work ??
>
> ***
> Start Quote
> *"For any reuse or distribution, you must make clear to others the
> license terms of this work. The best way to do this is with a link to
> this web page. "*
> end quote
>
> What constitues reuse or distribution -
>
> reuse - replying to your mails with your mail in full ??
>
>
> **
> or
> Start Quote
> * You are free:*
>
>    * to Share — to copy, distribute and transmit the work
>    * to Remix — to adapt the work
>
> End Quote
>
> Does my replying to your mails mean i have to quote your license -
>
> does my editing you mail constitute remixing your mail (original
> content) and does it mean that i have to include in my mail the link
> to the CC license website.
>
> ***
> Getting silly it seems but then licenses , even CC licenses , if used
> inappropriately will get to be a bit silly.
>
> ***
> So does all this make sense
>
> ram
>
> On Wed, May 21, 2008 at 10:26 AM, shirish <shirishag75 at gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Two : this is issue of licensing (even through CC) is way over the
>>> top. This mailing list will already have its on Copyright regimes and
>>> it makes no sense for an individual , however quotable they may be, to
>>> devalue the concept of CC licensing. Further mails as coming from an
>>> identified address will be , by theory, ascribed to that person and
>>> hence copyright'able  As a habit, it a bad one. to CC license email,
>>> it sets the wrong precedent.
>>>
>>> As a presumption , what would be the next logical step licensing phone
>>> communication, sms's etc.
>>
>> I am not licensing the mails which are specific to this mailing list.
>> I license all the mails which I send using this, although have been
>> thinking to change it to CC - by - SA. There is just a single
>> motivation as far as licensing the mails through CC.
>>
>> 1. People with whomever I'm communicating, many of them are unaware of
>> the alternative that CC gives. I like that and I wanna do a bit of
>> propaganda for them. I don't get any commercial benefits of the same,
>> I like CC and hence I use one of the licenses to sign it.
>>
>> Ram, while I'm not particularly fond of flame-wars would love if you
>> could tell me why is the habit bad and why does it send a wrong
>> precendant?
>>
>> [quote] As a habit, it a bad one. to CC license email, it sets the
>> wrong precedent. [/quote]
>>
>>> ram
>>
>> --
>>  Regards,
>>  Shirish Agarwal
>>  This email is licensed under http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/
>>
>> 065C 6D79 A68C E7EA 52B3 8D70 950D 53FB 729A 8B17
>>
>> --
>> ubuntu-in mailing list
>> ubuntu-in at lists.ubuntu.com
>> https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-in
>>
>
> --
> ubuntu-in mailing list
> ubuntu-in at lists.ubuntu.com
> https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-in
>