[okfn-discuss] registration and "relinquishment"
pm286 at cam.ac.uk
Sun Jul 27 19:24:33 BST 2008
jo at frot.org wrote:
Greetings Jo - and forgive me if I blunder into misunderstanding you
> dear all,
> I am looking at the overview of the next Communia workshop in Amsterdam:
> Creative Commons and others are currently developing tools to
> certify the public domain status of a work or to determine the status
> of works with unknown status. This session will also touch on the role
> of copyright registries ... http://communia-project.eu/node/109
> I would be interested to hear more about what CC are doing with this.
> Also supposing that CKAN is one of the "and others" concerned.
> Doesn't this look like a DRM worldview? I've heard the argument from
> (Geo)DRM fans that their work is in the interests of openess because
> it serves to provide assurance that works are free and for public use.
My understanding of DRM (and MikeL has answered this) is that it is a
technical device to limit the unauthorised distribution of digital info.
So I think what you are saying is that those who might lean towards
towards DRM may also lean towards a restrictive use of CC0 or similar.
Is the following simple view correct:?
* CC0 allows anyone to repurpose and redistribute the work without
permission of the creators.
* CC0 also requires appropriate acknowledgement of the authors
* CC0 may be accompanied by community norms which urge certain ways of
redistributing, modifying or other re-use. These norms may also include
formal practices outside the realm of licences and copyright (e.g.
funder poilicies, privacy, safety, defamation, trades description,
etc.). In my own case I ensure community norms with a curse (anyone who
misuses or misrepresents my work will suffer from creeping bitrot).
A group may wish to restrict the development or use of their work under
their own name. CC0 does not give any indivdiual the right to be part of
a project or to have their changes incorporated by default. It is not a
Wikipedia. When Henry Rzepa and I publish a specification for a CML
schema I expect anyone to be able to copy it and redistribute and make
pretty versions and turn it into code but I expect them not to change
it. This is a community norm. And in general it works. If people modify
my spec without permission and distribute mutant versions then I can
reasonably be upset. The mutants reak my (correct) code. My reputation
for clarity and consistency suffers through no fault of mine. Nor do the
recipients have any formal right to insist on changes. We all know the
problems of code bloat and vision creep.
Does this conflict with your ideas Jo? I any case I think that it is
important to stress the ways that norms may be developed.
> okfn-discuss mailing list
> okfn-discuss at lists.okfn.org
More information about the okfn-discuss