Copyright RDF Writing

Checking in

Thanks for well wishing. The suggestion of tea was a good one, but unfortunately I can’t drink any acidic juice such as OJ, as it hurts my throat more than a little.

Doing a bit of catch up. There were a couple of items of RDF I had to respond to over at Practical RDF, both of them related to postings from editors on the book. My only comment in addition to my two postings is this: I have a great deal of respect for the RDF Working Group. They worked, hard, to reach Last Call status on the newest RDF specification documents. All that’s left is a few odds and ends, and they can call their job done. It would be a real shame if the group took all that hard work and drop kicked it off a cliff in a burst of tired arrogance at the end of the day.

Liz joined the fun on Creative Commons with a challenge to Jonathon and myself to provide reasons for why not to use the licenses:


How ‘bout a “non-shithouse” version of why people might choose not to use the license, that can live side-by-side with the CC discussion of why they should?

Well, you only have to search on “creative commons” among my archives to see my comments, though I’m not sure about their ‘shithouse’ status. I look to Jonathon to provide a better answer to Liz, if he wishes, as the RDF posts took my time tonight, and I’m to bed. However, it seems to me that if Creative Commons is to be effective, it’s up the members of the CC to detail the problems associated with the CC licenses as well as the advantages. I’ve pointed out to a couple of members the writing that Tim Hadley has done; hopefully they’ll consider writing a post or two on these issues to go with all the postings about this artist or that blogger that has attached a CC license to their work.

I was more interested in responding to the discussion Liz and Dorothea are having about about academia. Specifically, I wanted to pursue the thread off this conversation that Baldur started:


Everybody speaks the same, in the same way, about the same thing, with little to no variation. We could easily turn into the lightspeed version of the same unsubstantiated bullshit of postmodern academia, shedding even the pretense of giving ideas space and scope for discussion.

What killed the author and poisoned academia is trying to return through the violated corpses of a horde of ’blogger-zombies spouting inane commentary on the links of the day.

But as the popularity of weblogging increases, the number of meme-victims will rise and the blogdex top fifty will not only describe the fifty most popular subjects amongst webloggers…

It will describe the only subjects.

What I’ve tried to say in a thousand words, Baldur said in a few. I wanted to write in response, but lacked the energy to respond well. I couldn’t do justice to Baldur’s words.

But when I’m well, and have the energy to respond, to do Baldur’s writing true justice, should I?

Print Friendly, PDF & Email