Response to Mike - dual strategy etc.

Jump to: navigation, search

Extending this discussion (continuing here as the discussion is slightly off the focus on that page).

> ... CC BY is neutral, at worst ...

Point taken, I have adjusted the wording slightly to not refer to the license per se. The position is speculative and the license itself is neutral.

Re: > This is incorrect in three ways.

> First ...

I was more focused on 'fence' (enclosability) than 'defence' - a fear that cc-by knowledge resources could be usurped and mixed automatically, immediately (even customised) and served to society via closed knowledge brokering systems which are more efficient than any human community can be in generating 'competing' libre copyleft resources. In this situation using cc-by-sa would act as a 'pre-emptive de-fense' with the cc-by-sa resources becoming foundation for equivalent libre knowledge broker systems.

One question I have is "how 'viral' is the anti-DRM clause in CC licenses?" (in this case, 'viral' is good for freedom). I would imagine that it could be moreso in cc-by-sa than in cc-by - but suspect it is not strictly viral in either??

> Second, ...

Yes, again, I am speculating that "A preponderance of cc-by resources (mostly emanating from well-meaning "open" communities) may encourage business models which profit by enclosing cc-by cultural works, creating artificial scarcity". In this likely (imo) scenario, enclosure will continue to dominate.

> Third, ... (and the rest)

Agreed (hence the dual strategy mentioned) and all good points. Thanks again. - Kim Tucker 12:45, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

KTucker (talk)01:45, 17 June 2011