Please share far and wide! https://calendar.app.google/8tFdyu9rYwKGZXnY9
It's important that #ccmusic people come to as much of this as possible if for no other reason than to help us figure out if we want to do something like this yearly, and if so, how to improve it.
Website talk & Live Shows talk are locked in to their time, but any of the other times can be moved...although ideally not since some of the docs have the times listed. Still, lmk if you would like to be at a specific talk but time is bad.
@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?
@Nomys_Tempar @Cheesetruck that's just a thought. I have no idea where that leaves Free Art, though I really haven't seen much Free Art in the last decade
@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 @Cheesetruck Free Art/ Libre Art is compatible with BY-SA for like a decade now. that is super not a concern
@musicman @Cheesetruck
The concern is if the organization you wish to do only endorse CCs, it will exclude other compatible licenses (and there are quite a few).
@Nomys_Tempar @Cheesetruck What I am saying is I can't see a reason to exclude Free Art 1.3, as it has been compatible with CC BY-SA for over a decade now. We'll have to figure out if/how we are going to evaluate other licenses.
@Nomys_Tempar I was going to attach a copy of what is essentially the ByLaws in wrote in law school in 2013 (with some minor edits), but it seems I cannot attach anything other than images, audio, and video.
In any case:
ARTICLE III - PURPOSES
The purposes for which this corporation has been organized are as follows:
(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;
@Nomys_Tempar I'd anticipate that document not going through a ton of edits -- although -- I could be wrong about that.
@Nomys_Tempar @Cheesetruck it turns out this does not look super terrible on etherpad: https://etherpad.p2pu.org/p/articlesofincorporation-actualdoc
@Nomys_Tempar @Cheesetruck I really wish artlibre.org didn't translate the proper noun of their license name, but can't put that horse back in the barn....
@Nomys_Tempar @musicman @Cheesetruck
"free and open license" is exactly what we have in mind. Please visit and share your ideas. Look at the spreadsheet and there are links to etherpads for each topic. Feel free to add your ideas.
We just call it "friends of ccmusic" in lack of a better name. I feel like #ccmusic is a somewhat established hashtag for free music. But maybe another tag is even more commonly used?
The "friends" is just an attempt to connect all people who are interested in free (as in libre) music culture.
@dlikdh @Nomys_Tempar @Cheesetruck "libre" is not a great word to use since NC and ND licenses are not libre. even if we accept @wiloma's definition that anyone that releases music is a #netlabel that is not clean as that would include a bunch of all rights reserved stuff.
There is "some rights reserved" but too long for a hashtag. #srrmusic only adds a character. We could see if we could get it to catch on.
Although it's still not precise as there are things like public domain declarations
@musicman @dlikdh @Cheesetruck @wiloma
#ssrmusic Feels more attune to me than #ccmusic
It can works for public domain too as under authors's rights laws there is moral rights still attached to the work even under public domain.
At @dogmazic we dont use only "libre", but "libre and open music", so #lomusic ? #laomusic ? #LOM ?
@Nomys_Tempar @dlikdh @Cheesetruck @wiloma @dogmazic I've never seen a definition of "open" that would include NC and ND though happy to be pointed to one
@musicman @dlikdh @Cheesetruck @wiloma @dogmazic
To us "Open License" is a generic term, it's the same as "open source license" or "libre license".
"Libre and open licenses" is meant to put an emphasis on libre licenses without excluding open source or ND/NC licenses.
@Nomys_Tempar @dlikdh @Cheesetruck @wiloma @dogmazic open source is NOT a generic term. it is defined by the OSI
@musicman @dlikdh @Cheesetruck @wiloma @dogmazic
Open is not open source.
And I don't think the Open Source movement can trademark the word open as his own.
As I was saying Open Licenses can be read as different (more generic) than "open source licenses". In large part cause open source license are indeed very well define.
@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
@Nomys_Tempar @dlikdh @Cheesetruck @wiloma @dogmazic ccmixter took the CC and change the meaning but I'm not sure the words they used make sense for us.
the proposal I made in the last video I recorded was to use the Dogmazic list of licenses.
Back in 2010, Tom and I decided to focus on "remixable music" but that was a confusing term because people have a narrow definition of remix. that very consciously excluded ND. I feel like #ssrmusic is pretty clean if we think we can get it to stick
@musicman @Nomys_Tempar @Cheesetruck @wiloma @dogmazic
I want to be as open as possible but also easily recognisable. A precise but cryptic hashtag will not do the trick.
#creativecommons is the defacto standard on Wikipedia, Bandcamp, FMA and so on. So I would stay with calling it #ccmusic on the outside for the newbies and then be more specific and open in the definition. Maybe add a subheadline on the website
"Friends of ccmusic -
and all other open licenses and stuff".
@dlikdh @Nomys_Tempar @Cheesetruck @wiloma @dogmazic The name definitely stays. we already have the URL and a bunch of branding but the proposed ByLaws are actually very flexible in this regard. Possibly too flexible, I don't think it even mentions music but unless we think there's the possibility of Directors steering the org away from music I don't see this as a huge problem. It means we can promote other types of open content without having an argument about whether it's relevant.
@dlikdh @Nomys_Tempar @Cheesetruck @wiloma @dogmazic specifically Section 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;
https://etherpad.p2pu.org/p/articlesofincorporation-actualdoc
@dlikdh @Nomys_Tempar @Cheesetruck @wiloma @dogmazic one of the things I have talked about for YEARS is I would love for someone to have a Free Culture adjacent org. I think that could fit within FCCM, but someone just needs to step up and make that happen. Maybe if I can't get the folks I've asked on my Mini-Series I'll do a Free Culture show to prove it's possible.
@dlikdh @musicman @Cheesetruck @wiloma @dogmazic
Easily recognisable by who ?
CC licenses aren't mainstream at all (not in TV, mainstream radios, even copyright's companies don't care about CCs).
It's a niche, the bigger niche for licenses in art, yes, but it's still a niche.
Does this niche better in terms or representation than the others ? I don't know...
@musicman @dlikdh @Cheesetruck @wiloma @dogmazic CCMixter seems to be CC licenses exclusive, therefore it makes sens to have them have "CC" in their name.
@Nomys_Tempar @dlikdh @Cheesetruck @wiloma @dogmazic well if came out of CC HQ. a long, gory divorce there.
@musicman @Nomys_Tempar @dlikdh @Cheesetruck @wiloma @dogmazic
I think that the "CCs" are also a brand, a reference. I don't mind, as an artist, to be in an event called CCMUSIC and this, even if I publish under other licenses.
The movement of free music is so diverse, and it was born long before the CC, Ram Samudrala, in 1994, specified the contours. The Libre License was born in 1999.
1/2
@musicman @Nomys_Tempar @dlikdh @Cheesetruck @wiloma @dogmazic
I don't think we can sweep these components of the movement. Just as I do not think that these components must move away from any movement around values that are close to them: freedoms of dissemination, modification, sharing (with all the nuances that characterize the movement).
2/2
@Aisyk @Nomys_Tempar @dlikdh @Cheesetruck @wiloma @dogmazic yes, I spoke about pre-cc stuff (hell, I spoke about pre-printing press stuff) in my latest video.
@musicman @Aisyk @Nomys_Tempar @Cheesetruck @wiloma @dogmazic
I think we could learn a lot from the OER (Open Educational Ressources) community. There is no one-fits-all organisation. But they all work together.
So everybody can do their thing. But at some point, we should meet and do something together. I don't care how many organisations there are and under what flag they sail. I'm interested in coming together and see what we can do. For starters: An annual virtual barcamp around netlabel day would be great.
The OERcamp.global could be a blueprint. I have attended it in 2021 and it was amazing. The next will be end of 2025.
@dlikdh @Aisyk @Nomys_Tempar @Cheesetruck @wiloma @dogmazic not sure this is something i actually want to do but something to think about and we've got some time to think about it. FALs 25th is 2025 and CCs 25th is 2026. we could try to have some sort of multi-day event maybe something like the 31st, 1st and 2nd where we celebrate FAL, Public Domain, and CC.
it's obviously a difficult time of year but maybe there's an opportunity there.
This might fit in with the steering committee discussion
@Aisyk @Nomys_Tempar @Cheesetruck @wiloma @dogmazic fit there because having someone in charge of events would be good. @dlikdh might be the guy.
@musicman @ryno
Also I don't know if I want to have an official role in any committee, given my personal situation. But I really would like to do things. Early in 2025 I will attend a workshop from the OER community here in Germany on how to run a virtual barcamp. I really would like to make that happen. And what I have in mind is a bit more than just a Jitsi call. But I have to figure things out first.
@musicman @ryno
Ah yes. I have to admit that anyway I don't like the format so much. I would call for entries way before the date and then plan a schedule. And I would ask participants to provide some input before. I'm really tired of all the adhoc discussions that end with no planning what to do next. What I like is when people talk about what they're doing and even better if they can give some inspiration. So i would try to have a little tiny bit of curation.
@dlikdh @ryno the format works really well in large physical venues where people can just walk to another session. it's too easy to show up and waste people's time virtually.
there are a lot of different ways to incorporate some of that though, particularly for multi-day events but an easy way to do it is have planned talks at the beginning and leave some amount of time at the end for discussions that arise earlier in the conference
@musicman @dlikdh @Cheesetruck @wiloma
"even if we accept @wiloma's definition that anyone that releases music is a #netlabel that is not clean as that would include a bunch of all rights reserved stuff."
Separate topic but it's a funny definition. Label (net or not) means to me the collusion between 1/ some editorial choices and 2/ multiples bands/artists.
Yes labels can be one person/artist only, but is this the definition of a label ? I don't know...