The dollar amount for the linux kernel was calculated by the Linux Foundation as the cost of developing the kernel from scratch. The Foundation used something called the Constructive Cost Model (COCOMO) to estimate the value of software from the number of lines of code (30 million!), the average salary of software developers, and other unstated factors. It also placed a dollar value on a full distribution of gnu/linux (the Fedora distribution, including the linux kernel plus Fedora’s assembled set of Free Software applications) and estimates that rewriting the 204 million lines of code that are included in Fedora 9 would require 60,000 person-years of development time (over $10 billion). Insanity.

The appropriation issue is really interesting and one of my favorite things to think about. The KKK using an On song in a training video would certainly be a bummer. :) Imagine a KKK PR person took the words out of “Waiting” and replaced them with her own lyrics — something I’m explicitly saying she can do, as long as she shares her new version and new lyrics. She then uses this in a for-sale DVD called “Ensemble Taiko Hails the Confederacy!”. Ug. But even in a case like this, there are four reasons I’m okay with it.

1) In abiding by my rules, the KKK is undermining its own racism. Their music *must* be shared equally and they cannot deny freedom to any user. They must allow anyone to share and modify their DVD. That’s a poignant stab at their philosophy, and one that standard music ownership does not enable. The KKK is all about ownership — “This is our country, not yours.” The Free Art License is all about equality.

2) One of the main fears is association — “Maybe people will think I am a member of the KKK.” But even in this extreme example, I’m not too afraid of this. The link to my original music must be included with the DVD, and in this way, the KKK is giving me a voice directly to those who buy and share the DVD. As I see it, I have an opportunity to share my distaste of the KKK philosophy, one that I wouldn’t otherwise have. I can even imagine getting on the news and having quite a platform for explaining why I disagree with the KKK and am excited about Free Culture.

3) For every KKK PR person, there are a dozen others doing honest, good work.

4) Appropriation prevails in proprietary music. Almost every successful band has their music used in commercials for stuff I dislike. Music is an integral part of peddling things that are bad for us as individuals and bad for our society. I think this is a symptom of our basic illness as an ownership society. Trapped in the mindset of strict ownership, the proprietary music scene encourages musicians to give up control of their works in exchange for exposure and financial reward, and gives full control to the new ownership, with no respect for the roots of the music or the intentions of its creators. For musicians, I don’t think that saying, “Well, *we* just won’t let bad companies use our music…” is a viable option. Bands I love, made up of musicians I respect, have their music used in hair-care commercials convincing women they are not beautiful unless they worry about silkiness and shine. It’s like there’s no way out of it — write a great, popular song and it *will* be in a commercial. Well, enough! Free music from this madness!

I really want to understand this concept and how it works in practice, but I’m a little confused about the comment that the linux kernel is worth 1.4 billion dollars. Can you say more about how something that was created by volunteers and exists without purchase or investment is given a dollar value? Maybe I don’t understand what you mean. Also, I thought your Budweiser example was a really powerful one. Maybe I’m working from the old paradigm, but wouldn’t it bother you a little if a company, or person, or government, or any organization you found offensive appropriated your work? If the KKK used an On song in a training video (I know this is a stretch) wouldn’t you feel violated?

Also, on a sisterly note, I heard resonances with “Perpetuating Humanity’s Gifts” in a few sentences. Good work, Meat.

Thinking through all this more, even though the practical requirements are the same, I favor the way the Free Art License explains its requirements in terms of keeping the work free (copyright and license must remain with the work so that others know the work is free), whereas the CC license implies that “attribution” is the end goal. I strongly believe that attribution happens naturally when good work is done, and don’t want to put too fine a point on demanding it.

I actually prefer the free art license over CC-BY-SA, but that’s my preference ;)

I believe that this all comes back to us. We will never know until we deliver our goods to the world and wait for the collaboration to begin. This is really outstanding!
Jon B.

I also started out using Creative Commons. At the time, CC had the “Share-Alike” (SA) license which seemed very similar to the GPL. They did away with it, now offering only the Share-Alike Attribution (SA-A) license, on the basis that not many people were using the SA license. After reading more, the SA-A license actually looks really good to me. But since *all* of the other licenses offered by Creative Commons are non-free in one way or another, I have a hard time getting excited about Creative Commons anymore. Everyone uses the Non-Commercial licenses, which to me, are not useful for the Free Culture movement.