Retour

@musicman Is it only about CC licenses or other kind of free/libre licenses also accepted?

@Nomys_Tempar accepted to what? The event on Jan 25 is a discussion about building an organization. There will be no music submissions that day. What I hope happens is that a musician steps up to help build that fork of the organization and build tools that will help all musicians. @Cheesetruck has talked about there being some sort of monthly #netlabel show, but right now there is nothing set in stone about that. Right now that is scheduled for the 3rd slot on the day if u want to get involved

@musicman @Cheesetruck I mean is it just about CC licenses or people using other libre and free licenses can participate ?

Is it possible to come wanting to build an organization not limited to CC licenses or is it only about an organization promoting/defending/interesting on CC licenses ?

@Nomys_Tempar @Cheesetruck there isnt an policy on non-CC licenses. the point of the event on the 25th is to determine policies like that

@Nomys_Tempar @Cheesetruck the only concern I *personally* have with non-CC licenses is how we deal with compatibility issues.

there's two sides of the coin though. 1. people are already confused so what's the harm in some more licenses.

2. on the other hand, limiting to just CC licenses makes things very clear and we don't have to worry about evaluating different licenses.

maybe we could say something like CC licenses and any license approved by the OSI?

@musicman @Cheesetruck At Dogmazic we uses the term "free and open licences".

Compatibility is a legitim concern to me, but confusion doesn't convince me.

I personally often use the Libre Art Licence (https://artlibre.org/).
Keeping only the CC license or just caring about them feels like a very USA-centric thing.
And it's also not very right towards a bunch of libre artists that have promoted libre art through the years (specially in the 90's).

@Nomys_Tempar @dlikdh @Cheesetruck @wiloma @dogmazic I guess the ultimate question is whether this resolves the tension:

Article III(2):
To foster, promote and increase access to public interest content available to the general public and promote the general right to use, change or distribute cultural works;

If it does, then I don't think we need to worry about the ambiguity. If it doesn't, then we probably have some hard choices to make Jan 25.

@musicman @dlikdh @Cheesetruck @wiloma @dogmazic

I don't think it does, even if I agree that it definitly should, today names are trademarks carrying meaning of its own.
The CC reference means emphasis on CC. It can't be denied. Choosing a name like "Friend of CCmusic" isn't done on a whim, because it is not generic, but specific.

1/2

@musicman @dlikdh @Cheesetruck @wiloma @dogmazic

Would you consider the name "Friend of OSmusic" ? No because OS is very well defined and specific. Well for anyone who knows nothing about free software OS/CC/MIT/Apache are all the same things...

2/2

@Nomys_Tempar @dlikdh @Cheesetruck @wiloma @dogmazic the name was chosen 10 months ago. sorry

@musicman @dlikdh @Cheesetruck @wiloma @dogmazic

The all Article 3 is in favor of CC licenses by name.
If the status is already this closed (the fact its naming specific items for the benefit of CC works, discard this items for other licenses's works), then the name is fitting.

@Nomys_Tempar @dlikdh @Cheesetruck @wiloma @dogmazic I suppose there's no reason for the legal entity name and the URL to be the same.

It doesn't much matter to me if CC is in the name as the ByLaws are what govern what the org actually does and will be the important aspect for grant applications. Friends of Music seems a little generic but if it's free it's a pretty minimal branding change

@Nomys_Tempar @dlikdh @dogmazic maybe it'd be too confusing but we could really lean into the ambiguity and have the name of the org be called Friends of Netlabel Music. btw, a large point of the "friends" label when it was chosen was such that musicians wouldn't feel the need to be all CC to be involved. you just need to be a friend. That applies to any random license as much as it does All Rights Reserved.

There are a lot of "Friends of Music" unfortunately or fortunately depending I guess.

@Nomys_Tempar @dlikdh @dogmazic hmm, Community Commons keeps the #ccmusic hashtag which is pretty popular. We could just show solidarity with ccmixter in post divorce proceedings and go with Collaborative Community but I also think that branding works very specifically for ccmixter and maybe wouldn't be ideal to muddy that.

@Nomys_Tempar @dlikdh @dogmazic it's actually been 11 years (well, in 14 days) since I've read the Articles of Incorporation doc but I know for a fact it is "Free Culture" in that document and I just did a replace all in the ByLaws doc to be Creative Commons to have something closer to what we were going for before Jan 25, but I should probably drop that Articles of Incorporation doc on an Etherpad too at this point.

@Nomys_Tempar @dlikdh @dogmazic interesting. I guess we were going to have my brother be agent. Did not expect to se that city, but I think Stephen may have been in Mexico at the time.

@Nomys_Tempar @dlikdh @dogmazic I don't remember at all if we changed anything, but not tying yourself to an external org is ideal. I hadn't wanted to go through the work of actually writing a definition, but I think that may actually be required given there isn't a good definition for this stuff, unlike when we were doing Free Culture stuff: https://etherpad.p2pu.org/p/actualarticlesofincorporation