Open source guru Richard Stallman has slammed the Creative Commons standard and says he no longer supports it.

In an interview with Linux P2P.com, Stallman said that some of the licences that come out of the Creative Commons Standard were unacceptable.

Because some of the licences are bad, it makes the whole Creative Commons thing useless and has to be rejected in its entirety.

He said that people made the mistake of ignore the differences between the various Creative Commons licenses and lumped them together as a single thing. But Stallman said that thinking was as mixed-up as supposing San Francisco and Death Valley have similar weather because they're both in California.

He said that some Creative Commons licences are free, but most permit at least noncommercial verbatim copying. However, some such as the Sampling Licences and Developing Countries Licences, don't even permit that, which makes them unacceptable to use for any kind of work.

Stallman believes that they only thing the Creative Commons licences have in common is a label.

Source: The Inquirer

(This is an Underground Hurtful story.) Yo, I've already left my (hardcore) thoughts on sUG... but I wanna' hear what you all think of this. I've got FACTS compared to this guy's "truthiness", so don't read his quotes as being facts...

But yo, I wanna' hear what you all think of this story here.. your own thoughts, no one else's, and then I'll submit my own. (although I probably can't submit the hardcore thoughts I left on sUG, hehehe...)

Mixer Jaëxx @ http://www.supportUG.com

I think that I prefer attribution licenses to attribution NC. But to me, slamming CC for trying to come up with form licenses is a bit beside the point. They're just tools to do something people were able to do anyway. But they're not evil or bad tools just because some of them are less than open source.

Personally, I love to remix, and recently in my own obscure journal argued for less use on dmusic of the "nd" tag license.
But music need not be open source. Copyright is not always an evil. "Intellectual property" is a useful phrase.

"Intellectual Property" does not exist.

It is a ruse used by lawyers to convince you that an idea can be owned.

No copyright is not always evil but it has become so abused of late that it is laughable.
The bargain inherent in copyright law has been so severly skewed in favor of the holders v. the public that it is no longer a bargain at all for the public. (Or ironically for the artists) Only the publishers benefit.

CC licenses are just a tool to allow copyright holders to lessen the "default" restrictions of copyright without the new user having to contact that original copyright holder directly.

CC licenses by themself are NOT the copyright itself. (The copyright itself still remains from the moment of creation EVEN if the copyright holder decides to use a CC license.)

Stallman's reported "beef" shouldn't be with the Creative Commons, but rather, with copyright itself (and/or with any copyright holder who wishes to continue to allow their work to be overly protected and restricted by the already existing copyright.)

CC does NOT "replace" copyright, nor can it legally "strengthen" it's restrictions, CC only gives the holder a way to LESSEN the already existing restriction by various degrees.

...that's my 2 cents.

Stallman is a purist who doesn't compromise his beliefs. Thats cool.

Hey, I'm a big fan of Stallman, don't get me wrong!

I don't even know where I stand on this...I use CC for copyrighted registerd and non registerd matarial of ours, so that I don't have to be bothered if some one wants to play it re-mix it or use it I like the whole concept. And they dont have to hunt us down for permission, I have to say finding the right person to get permision to play a song on a podcast is pure hell ecspecialy if its the band and they tour alot ...

independentmusician “Stallman's reported "beef" shouldn't be with the Creative Commons, but rather, with copyright itself”

That’s exactly right. But, wouldn’t this “God” of internet and laws have enough common sense to realize this? I have no respect for this guy… “Hey, I'm a big fan of Stallman, don't get me wrong!” Well the rest of the world may have posters of “Dreamboat Stallman” up on their bedroom walls… but I am not a fan, and will never be.

(*Why is licenses misspelled “licences” in the story on The Inquirer web site?? I bet some someone in the Linux community hacked into the site and post the story “himsefl”)
“Because some of the licences* are bad, it makes the whole Creative Commons thing useless and has to be rejected in its entirety.” “He said that some Creative Commons licences* are free, but most permit at least noncommercial verbatim copying.”

Yo, it doesn’t mean YOU can’t use it for commercial reasons… it means OTHER PEOPLE can’t use it.
Some are free? They’re all free! Here’s what it says on the actual Creative Commons web site…

“With a Creative Commons license, you keep your copyright but allow people to copy and distribute your work provided they give you credit -- and only on the conditions you specify here.”

Then it goes on to say

“Allow commercial uses of your work: yes or no”

Those restrictions are for other people, “allow people to…”. YOU can use it for commercial reasons. And Creative Commons does have this cool “GNU GPL” thing, but the dude isn’t talking about just that because there are no options with that, that he’s describing. He’s describing audio and ‘freakin’ other sh*t; make no mistake. He’s truly hurting the underground, and all people who share the same mentality (such as HIS OWN GNU project does).

And what’s worst is that the ENTIRE Linux community are lapping and agreeing with every single word. “RMS, the world needs a whole lot more of you.” and “Totally awesome. Stallman kicks ass” Nice goin’, ya …. you’ve just turned off hundreds of would be DJs, mixers, artists, ect. from using a license that will protect the fans.