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? 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. 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. Your theory is internally inconsistent. Why would Garlick and Lessig give us a draft license with a parallel distribution proviso in it, just to take it away again? What about posts to the cc-licenses list by international affiliates saying, "I opposed this proviso at Rio?" Most importantly, who cares? Whether or not there's a conspiracy, the same task is needed: to make the case to the public, on cc-licenses and elsewhere, that rigid anti-DRM clauses inhibit freedom and and that parallel distribution at a minimum is needed for users and for developers. There is a strong emotional knee-jerk reaction against parallel distribution, since it "allows DRM". It takes some work to overcome that reaction. > 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. > 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. > > 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. 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. > I'm disappointed that anyone would think starting with 'you may feel' > excuses posting personal attacks to an open list. I'm sad to see that when presented with a difficult situation you've resorted to ineffectual smear tactics. I'm sad to see someone who could be doing useful work for Debian and for Free Software obsessing about minutiae. I know you can do better. ~Evan -- Evan Prodromou <evan@debian.org> The Debian Project (http://www.debian.org/)
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part