A recent message to the “cc-icommons”:http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-icommons mailing list pointed readers to a self-described “slick” “critical report”:http://rights.apc.org/documents/isummit_2006.pdf of the “iSummit”:http://icommons.org/isummit/ held in Rio earlier this year. The reporter, Andrew Garton, takes Creative Commons to task for the “self-congratulatory” atmosphere, the acceptance of Microsoft as a sponsor and our apparently over-zealous promotion of Microsoft’s “CC licensing plugin”:http://wiki.creativecommons.org/Microsoft_Office_Addin for Microsoft Office (among other things). Garton questions if the same response would have been equal had a similar plugin been developed for “OpenOffice.org”:http://openoffice.org. I can’t speak for Creative Commons as an organization or any other staff member. What I _can_ say is that I would personally have been even *more* enthusiastic about an OOo version, because that would mean I could actually _use_ it.
I think that critical self-examination is a good thing, both at the personal and organizational level. But after an initial read, here’s the rub in my mind:
* Implying that we would be less enthusiastic about an OOo plugin because we accepted sponsorship from Microsoft is at best the moral equivalent of an “ad hominem”:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem argument.
* The scholarships CC handed out to enable greater (broader) attendance of the iSummit weren’t free; they relied on, uh, _sponsorship_.
* We can’t even debate how well we would promote an OOo plugin because *no one has written one*. It’s not like I took time out of my work schedule to write a Microsoft plugin or even to assist them with coding. They simply took advantage of our “*publicly available*”:http://wiki.creativecommons.org/Creative_Commons_Web_Services “web services”:http://api.creativecommons.org and _built it_.
* The amount of crap I took at the iSummit as a CC employee for “helping Microsoft” was, well, ridiculous. If you want something different, maybe you should stop whining about it and start coding.
* “Red noses”:http://flickr.com/photos/rhythmbeatingsilenceakarbs/180685902/in/set-72157594186007575/ are dumb. Throwing paper wads at the presenter from Microsoft (which Garton fails to mention as another “protest” action) is not only disrespectful, but makes you look like a child. A spoiled, petulant brat of a child. [God, I've been wanting to say that for *months*!]
So those are my own initial thoughts. As I was reading the PDF in Evince, I happened to look at the document properties. Huh, that’s interesting. Written using Microsoft Word, generated used Distiller for Microsoft WIndows.
_”Mmmm… that’s some good irony; with just a hint of hypocrisy.”_
That’s comedy!! Good find. Hopefully this post encourages some people to be less childish in the future.
The document metadata is funny, and the paper throwing quite childish. But you’d garner more sympathy if you addressed the substance of his arguments.
For instance, was the atmosphere too self-congratulatory? Was there enough space for critical self-examination? Should CC have given the MS Office plugin such prominence irrespective of the availability of other plugins (such as the Inkscape CC functionality)? Should Microsoft have sponsored the summit, and if not then what would the implications for the location and scholarships have been?
thanks for making the effort to point out what i wasn’t hiding in the first place. yes, i do use microsoft products. i wasn’t so much concerned about the product, but the _product_ placement. who gives a toss about a microsoft plugin and why should a mere plugin be given such a high rating?
with regards to the “protest”, there was a legitimate reason for this and yes, childish, but i feel the response was less childish than the impression that was created amongst some that microsoft representation had to be accomodated on a panel that its participants weren’t adequatly consulted.
i’m surprised that people have been more prone to criticise my report for the microsoft incident. the brand is well known enough to not have to be honed in on a report i felt covered a lot more ground.
-ag.
Andrew –
I didn’t mean to imply you were hiding your use of Microsoft products, simply that it was… ironic. From my perspective, the plugin _is_ important, since it allows users to embed metadata about licensing in document formats that they use every day. Part of CC’s mission is to reduce the cost of re-using copyright-protected material. A big part of that cost is figuring out who owns a work, and embedded, machine-readable metadata is a good way to make that easier.
As to the protest: I guess I wasn’t aware that Microsoft was added at the last minute (I’m not sure they were, I’d have to go back and look at my program). I’m also not sure that as a member of the panel, participants need to be consulted about the addition of other participants. I know that I wasn’t consulted as to whether I wanted to be on a panel with crazy-red-nose-anti-microsoft-ranting-guy. If they didn’t want to appear with Microsoft, it seems the more mature, professional approach would have been… to not appear. But again, that’s my personal opinion.
Nathan