Re: CC's responses to v3draft comments
Evan Prodromou <evan@debian.org> wrote:
> On Tue, 2006-26-09 at 09:42 +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
> > So, CC's leadership suggests that the workgroup's presented view is
> > not debian's view, which effectively kills the workgroup because its
> > lead starts arguing CC's point in public.
>
> What "point" is that?
That the workgroup's presented views do not reflect debian views.
> You're simply wrong on this, and if you go back to the email discussions
> on the debian-cc list you'll see that you're wrong. Mia talked to us
> about the Rio decision as if we had no options; *I* was the one who
> pointed out the results of the GFDL GR to her.
That was a tactical error. IIRC, I consistently opposed suggesting that
the GR was somehow not specific to FDL and offers a get-out route for CC.
> You insist on a conspiracy theorist's view of the situation: that the CC
> leadership subverted parallel distribution for some reason mostly to do
> with humiliating Debian and that international affiliates didn't oppose
> parallel distribution.
That is not my insistence. I am highlighting:
1. the proposed parallel distribution clause was needlessly complicated;
2. simpler parallel distribution terms already exist in some CC licences;
3. we do not know how, why or even exactly what Rio decision was taken,
nor how it can be revisited;
4. CC know how we make decisions and seem to be assuming a high-level
decision in their favour.
> Your theory is internally inconsistent.
Unsurprising, as it's not my theory.
> Why would Garlick and Lessig
> give us a draft license with a parallel distribution proviso in it, just
> to take it away again?
I don't believe they intended to take it away again.
> What about posts to the cc-licenses list by
> international affiliates saying, "I opposed this proviso at Rio?"
So far, I've seen one of those and it was mainly on grounds of complexity,
which could be addressed easily, but no opportunity was given to do so.
Then again, maybe some international affiliates have posted without
disclosing their hat - I don't know the CC community as well as some.
> Most importantly, who cares? [...]
I care. I dislike having both hands tied behind my back.
> > As a member, I share common
> > responsibility for the workgroup's failure on this, but it is not my
> > fault alone.
>
> Your failure is in not making a convincing argument to the public on the
> cc-licenses list about parallel distribution. You are very intelligent,
> well-versed in this subject, and you convey ideas clearly. You have some
> experience talking with at least a few of the people opposing parallel
> distribution on the list. You could make a difference, but you're not.
I'm still in the midst of moving coast-to-coast, which is rather
a distraction. I am forced to prioritise all my work. Given that
cc-licenses appears to have no clear role in CC, it was not a high
priority.
> > However, there is still hope: CC's leadership decision is not CC users'
> > view. Joe CC Public seems to have no input into it, or oversight of it.
>
> cc-licenses.
How does that restricted list give CC users input or oversight? The
decisions seem to appear out of the blue, undocumented. How can
Joe CC Public influence the decisions through it?
[...]
> > How can anyone discuss decisions made by a secret process for secret
> > reasons in any useful way? If that decision is to be changed, it helps
> > to know how and why it was made, but we simply have almost no data on it.
>
> There's a clear process for changing the decision: get public opposition
> against it, primarily on the CC's principle public conduit, the
> cc-licenses list. I have seen it work in the past; for instance, with
> the proposed changes to the 2.0 ShareAlike clause to allow any
> ShareAlike license to be compatible with any other.
How is that clear? Seems like guesswork and wishes to me.
> I'm sad to see that [...]
Please stop these sad personal attacks. They do not work on me.
--
MJR/slef
My Opinion Only: see http://people.debian.org/~mjr/
Please follow http://www.uk.debian.org/MailingLists/#codeofconduct
Reply to: