In honor of OSCON this week…
Creative Commons licenses were never intended for software nor really for technology specifications. Unfortunately, they were that new and shiny thing, and ended up being applied, incorrectly, to both.
This misuse of CC licenses for software, however, has not bothered me as much as arguments supporting Creative Commons licenses based on successes associated with the open source software movement. Particularly based on some assumption that Creative Commons licenses will ultimately prevail in the end because, after all, look how widespread the open source movement is today.
However, using the open source movement as argument for the inevitable success of Creative Commons is fallacious, specifically because the two are based on completely different concepts of what it is that's being shared.
A Creative Commons license is attached to an *object. That object can be a piece of text, an image, a lyric, a song, whatever, but it really is an object. We may copy the object, use it, alter it, re-distribute it, but what we have after all these actions is a new object, not an 'extension' of the previous object.
The software open source movement, on the other hand, is based on sharing knowledge not necessarily objects. It might look like we're attaching a license to an object when we add one to an application, such as adding a GLP license to GIMP, the open source photo editor. What we're really doing, though, is providing knowledge in the form of a complete application. Given this knowledge, one can either choose to add to the growing body of knowledge related to this specific instantiation–by contributing code to the existing application–or one can create a new knowledge path by 'forking' the software and creating a whole new application. It's not an 'object', per se, because what we're sharing is the underlying source code, not necessarily any instantiation of the source.
The artistic communities–whether based in music, writing, graphics, design, photography, textiles, or whatever–do share with developers an interest of, even passion for, 'shared knowledge'. However, many do so without necessarily having an additional interest in sharing objects.
I played around last night with creating Amazing Circles using GIMP, following a tutorial in how to do so, pointed out by Gimparoo!. This is only one of the seemingly tens of thousands of related tutorials we can find online to create almost effect we want. Sometimes effects we don't know we want until we see them.
Earlier, I found a wonderful tutorial in how to change the background of a subject with flyaway hair. In years past, I've explored how to photograph architecture, photograph birds, and photograph at night.
One can find templates for creating wondrous quilts online, as well as making lovely Japanese paper kites. One can find directions for making a tasty wedding cake, or building a bird house out of scrap wood. I would even go so far as to say that sharing knowledge is as much a universal human trait as walking upright, and using cash machines.
An access to this shared knowledge, though, does not imply an equal share in the results of such knowledge when applied. A photographer can pass along his secrets for making a better picture, and even provide examples we can use when following along such guided effort, but that doesn't mean we can then make free use of his own efforts because such is the result of an application of such knowledge. This is no more meaningful than believing we're owed the socks just knitted or the cradle just carved.
Software that is based on closed source, on the other hand, is no different than that carved cradle or knitted pair of socks. Closed source software can be seen as 'object' and not 'shared knowledge', a fact that is supported by law: closed source applications are covered by the same copyright laws that, more or less, cover books, paintings, and songs.
I doubt that Microsoft considers Windows Vista to be 'shared knowledge', and therefore it becomes 'object'. The same for Adobe and Photoshop, and Apple with iTunes — none of these companies consider these products to be 'shared knowledge'. Once something moves out of the realm of shared knowledge, it becomes object. To all intents and purposes, it becomes a thing to be used.
When you look at licenses created specifically for open source software, what comes through is the inherent nature of 'shared knowledge' associated with that software. The following is from the GNU Public License (GPL), the recently released version 3:
The licenses for most software and other practical works are designed
to take away your freedom to share and change the works. By contrast,
the GNU General Public License is intended to guarantee your freedom to
share and change all versions of a program–to make sure it remains free
software for all its users. We, the Free Software Foundation, use the
GNU General Public License for most of our software; it applies also to
any other work released this way by its authors. You can apply it to
your programs, too.When we speak of free software, we are referring to freedom, not
price. Our General Public Licenses are designed to make sure that you
have the freedom to distribute copies of free software (and charge for
them if you wish), that you receive source code or can get it if you
want it, that you can change the software or use pieces of it in new
free programs, and that you know you can do these things.To protect your rights, we need to prevent others from denying you
these rights or asking you to surrender the rights. Therefore, you have
certain responsibilities if you distribute copies of the software, or if
you modify it: responsibilities to respect the freedom of others.For example, if you distribute copies of such a program, whether
gratis or for a fee, you must pass on to the recipients the same
freedoms that you received. You must make sure that they, too, receive
or can get the source code. And you must show them these terms so they
know their rights.
To me, what the text I quoted is saying is that you're not attaching the license to a specific implementation of an application–you're passing along the rights to the source code and libraries and makefiles and what have you used to build the application, and it is all of this that is covered by the license, not necessarily the finished and compiled and static application. In a way, the application is incidental and many open source applications provide ways to create an application without providing actual compiled objects.
The license also makes a distinction between what is received for free and what is paid for — one can charge for the application, which is the object, but the underlying source code is made available for those who want to expand, create, edit, and so on.
There is no equivalent 'shared knowledge' concept for, say, a photograph. One can master photography in such a way as to seemingly duplicate the photograph, but that's not the same as taking the original photograph and copying it. The former is an application of knowledge, the latter is a duplication of object.
I suppose one could say that a software license without the 'copyleft' restriction, such as the FreeBSD license that allows one to use software without having to share the knowledge underlying derivations based on the source, is equivalent to putting something into the public domain. The same 'public domain' where one can also place photographs and writings. In this particular case, though, the software could be considered both object and shared knowledge: the initial source is shared knowledge, while future implementations could either continue as shared knowledge, or become objects, which are licensed, packaged, and/or sold.
What the Creative Commons licenses are doing is allowing one to duplicate or share objects, not share knowledge. Artists have always had a the ability to share knowledge without resorting to any specialized license, and without having to share their own implementations of such knowledge. Moreover, the interest in sharing knowledge is not the same as an interest in or desire to share objects. The latter is actually not a natural instinct for people; if it was, we'd all be living in communes.
Based on this argument, in my opinion, comparing Creative Commons with open source software is a false analogy. Building expectations of success on such can only lead to disappointment.
*As point of clarification, by 'object' in this instance, I am referring to a specific work or implementation, not necessarily a physical object.
