Creative Commons has offered the next argument in what it describes here as a process of redefining 'open'. "CC licenses are often viewed as neutral tools, but in practice they can amplify existing power imbalances (as we know, infrastructure is not neutral!). For example, marginalized language and data communities may lack the leverage to negotiate how open resources are reused." This is not new and not unique to marginalized language and data communities - anyone not wealthy enough to hire lawyers has no effective rights in a law- and lawyer-based system. But this isn't the issue being flagged by Creative Commons. "We know that openness is much more than a set of legal tools; it is a set of values, a way of belonging, a wish for a better future." The specific value CC seems to be promoting, though, is transactionalism. "Communities are responding by asking for openness that also accounts for agency, consent, reciprocity, and governance." Who speaks for 'communities'? Creative Commons? Related: Google backs African push to reclaim AI language data. Also: Microsoft Research releases PazaBench and Paza automatic speech recognition models, advancing speech technology for low resource languages.
Today: Total: [Direct link] [Share]
