Public good (German models of Wikipedia).
Human activity (culture).
Graft (in the sense of unpaid working and networking towards a paid goal).
Social capital (irreducible to markets).
Deontological realism (we are “tenants of culture”).
A value spiral (build and cash out).
Any more?
For my colleagues and fellow citizens who develop the Linux kernel, I have nothing but respect. I ask them please to join the conversation that is going on, to listen to others whose views may not be theirs, and to help the community make the best possible choices about matters of deep common concern.
And PJ Responds To One Of Moglen’s Critic (This is BY-NC)
He is saying he will listen, but if they tell him to
water down the GPL, he isn’t likely to go along. That
really is the problem. Linus has now said publicly
that only one of the GPL’s 4 freedoms matter to him.
I doubt that Moglen will go along with that. That
doesn’t mean he hasn’t listened. It means Linus has
a lot of nerve to even say something like that.
That’s my view. This is, in my opinion, the
enterprise trying to take over or muscle the
GPL. I doubt they will succeed, but they do
seem to be trying. Let them stay with
v2 if they want. I don’t care. But to try to
sink the GPLv3 ship if they can’t have what they
want is not right. The enterprise probably
hated v2 and still do, if they had full choice,
but it’s too late. Too many programmers use it
and they are stuck with it. But it was rms that
designed the GPL and he had a purpose, and
the purpose is one that the enterprise finds
inconvenient to the bottom line.
I am happy to see that Linus
has modified his earlier statements and now
says use the GPLv3 if you want to. He is to
be commended for that. The whole thing needs
to be toned down, in my view, and I hope
that attempt continues. Obviously, Moglen
is trying to work for a compromise solution,
instead of firing back, “You’re another” or
something childish.
Moglen is addressing here the issue that they are pretending they didn’t get to
participate or weren’t listened to. I know for a fact that they wanted
Linus to participate, and while I read Linus now
saying things like, “they know my email” I can
tell you from personal, first hand participation
that I stood on my head to get his participation
and I know others did too. The problem was *never*
that the FSF didn’t want him to participate.
liquid culture: CC flawed? That argument is secondary
There is a type of criticism against Creative Commons which has grown quite prominent within the copyleft recently. The main tenet in this line of argumentation seems to be that CC through its reliance on the existing copyright regime actually reinforces copyright. For example, Crosbie Fitch recently examplified this stance […]
I don’t find the “CC enhance copyright argument” convincing in it’s purest form, but it does presuppose copyright, so when I was talking about CC in copyright-free Belgrade I felt like a bit of a Useful Idiot for copyright.
And people do tend to regard CC licenses as a complete expression (neccessary and sufficient) of freedom. Some open source developers and MySpace commentators have regarded CC as a kind of negative Broadcast Flag; a sign of permission that means no permission is there if it is absent. CC also trains people to look for permission, where possibly we should be fighting for Fair Use. So this isn’t an open and cut case.
CC licenses are meant, like the GPL, to be a judo-throw using copyright law’s weight against itself. They may affect perception of copyright, but unless their use is formalized they do not in themselves strengthen it. This is a serious risk though, and it must be borne in mind and tackled.