[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: CC's responses to v3draft comments

Evan Prodromou <evan@debian.org> wrote:
> We have no documentation on how parallel distribution is absolutely
> necessary to satisfy the DFSG, nor do we have much of a mechanism short
> of a GR to determine if this is the consensus of Debian as a whole.

We have documentation, but not a clear internal agreement that stops
CC's lawyers thinking we can be turned.  The outline of the agreement
is simple - free redistribution includes the freedom to redistribute
on user-locked media as long as all other freedoms remain intact - and
our main methods for formalising that seem clear - ftpmaster precedents
and/or using the SRP to issue a GR - but, CC seemed to suggest that they
are relying on our inability to do that.

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.  As a member, I share common
responsibility for the workgroup's failure on this, but it is not my
fault alone.

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.

> Fixating on the mechanics of CC's decision about parallel distribution
> has done little good, and demonizing Creative Commons over it has done
> less.

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.

The little snippets I have heard from Englishmen present at iSummit are
rebutted very easily by CC's leaders, but never replaced with fuller
descriptions of what happened there.  I think the most likely reason is
that CC's leaders don't want to discuss this sincerely now.

For all I know, I could convince every single subscriber to cc-discuss and
it might make no difference - maybe CC is ruled by inviolable precedents
of hum votes.  I just don't know and it seems they've just point-blank
refused to explain how CC makes decisions.  This isn't demonising: it's
a serious CC bug which should be more widely known, like iCommons's
erroneous anti-commercial charter.

I remember being criticised for taking these comments to wider communities
in the past, but this is why I do that: CC's discussion forums seem
damped, narrow and impotent, which I think will only change when enough
prominent CC supporters like Evan start to question that problem.

> [...] I'd be disappointed if someone with as fine a mind as yours
> gave up so easily and comforted himself with name-calling.

I'm disappointed that anyone would think starting with 'you may feel'
excuses posting personal attacks to an open list.
My Opinion Only: see http://people.debian.org/~mjr/
Please follow http://www.uk.debian.org/MailingLists/#codeofconduct

Reply to: