[cc-community] creative commons advice

drew Roberts zotz at 100jamz.com
Wed Dec 31 13:27:45 EST 2008


On Wednesday 31 December 2008 11:45:35 Fred Benenson wrote:
> I'm not really sure what the difference between "throwaway" and
> "substantial" is, but I do know that copyleft makes more sense for some
> projects and BY makes sense for others.

For me, throwaway refers to minor works that one would not worry too much what 
happened to them, substantial would be ones that one would care more about.
>
> If you are concerned about work getting co-opted and used in proprietary
> forms, then you may want to stick with a copyleft license like BY-SA. On
> the other hand, if you just wish for your work to travel as far and as wide
> as possible (and be used in proprietary environments) then BY might be what
> you're looking for.

The real question is, if only one license is too be available of the two, 
BY-SA and BY, which should it be? If you anticipate substantial works, I 
submit that I think BY-SA would be the better choice.

Unless we feel that there are a large number of users who would contribute BY 
works but would refuse to contribute if only BY-SA were available. That seems 
unlikely to me. Whereas, I can much more easily see a goodly number of users 
who would submit BY-SA but would not submit BY.
>
> This  choice evokes the differences between permissive and copyleft
> licenses:
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_software_license#Permissive_versus_Copyle
>ft_controversy
>
> Good luck and let us know when its live!
>
> F

all the best,

drew
>
> ~ ~ ~
> thoughts / http://fredbenenson.com/blog
> work / http://creativecommons.org
> sights / http://flickr.com/fcb
> sounds / http://www.last.fm/user/mecredis
> status / http://twitter.com/mecredis
>
> On Tue, Dec 30, 2008 at 9:23 PM, drew Roberts <zotz at 100jamz.com> wrote:
> > On Tuesday 30 December 2008 18:06:25 Ching, James wrote:
> > > Thanks for the reply, that's good to know, I think I may keep it simple
> >
> > and
> >
> > > go with a site wide license to start as my main reason is that I want
> > > the users of my site to know and feel that if their content is
> > > republished at all, they would get acknowledgment.  Appreciate your
> > > comment and example, thanks again!
> >
> > My thoughts would be BY if you expect the content to be throwaway in
> > nature or
> > BY-SA if you expect the content to be more substantial. A lot of us are
> > unlikely to use BY for substantial works. Or have BY and BY-SA us user
> > profile options.
> >
> > > -James
> >
> > all the best,
> >
> > drew
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: cc-community-bounces at lists.ibiblio.org
> > > [mailto:cc-community-bounces at lists.ibiblio.org] On Behalf Of Burobjorn
> > > Sent: Tuesday, December 30, 2008 04:34 PM
> > > To: cc-community at lists.ibiblio.org
> > > Subject: Re: [cc-community] creative commons advice
> > >
> > > James,
> > >
> > > I belief that your application and use of the cc licenses for the
> > > generated content would be perfect. You can either let the user select
> > > the cc license or you can select a cc license yourself and let users of
> > > your application adhere to that license.
> > >
> > > Personally I would go for the first option, but if you do want to limit
> > > the users to one license please consider using a liberal and Commons
> > > promoting license such as CC-BY or CC-BY-SA. An example of a service
> > > utilizing the CC-BY license (see the bottom of the site) is
> > > Identi.ca[1] (a microblogging service such as Twitter, but available as
> > > free, open source software).
> > >
> > > [1] http://identi.ca/
> > >
> > > All the best,
> > >
> > > grtz
> > > BjornW
> > >
> > > met vriendelijke groet,
> > > Bjorn Wijers
> > >
> > > * b u r o b j o r n .nl *
> > > digitaal vakmanschap | digital craftsmanship
> > >
> > > Concordiastraat 68-126
> > > 3551 EM Utrecht
> > > The Netherlands
> > >
> > > phone: +31 6 49 74 78 70
> > > http://www.burobjorn.nl
> > >
> > > Ching, James wrote:
> > > > Hi,
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > I wanted to get some advice on a project that I'm working on which
> > > > I'm not entirely sure if it would be a good candidate for cc or not. 
> > > > I'm building an application which allows users to come to the website
> > > > and write reviews on businesses, events and etc, utilizing those
> > > > reviews, I am going to provide a tool that allows people to create
> > > > widgets to re-publish these reviews on blogs, their own websites and
> > > > etc.  After reading more about cc, I was thinking that applying a
> > > > default license
> >
> > to
> >
> > > > reviews written on my site would be beneficial for both sides, the
> > > > reviewer and the users utilizing the content on their website or
> > > > blog.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > I appreciate any advice and/or comments.  Let me know if this is the
> > > > correct place to post this or if the web forum would be better?
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Thanks in advance!
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > -James
> >
> > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > cc-community mailing list
> > > > cc-community at lists.ibiblio.org
> > > > http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-community
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > cc-community mailing list
> > > cc-community at lists.ibiblio.org
> > > http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-community
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > cc-community mailing list
> > > cc-community at lists.ibiblio.org
> > > http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-community
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > cc-community mailing list
> > cc-community at lists.ibiblio.org
> > http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-community
>
> !DSPAM:495ba241161521348188260!


More information about the cc-community mailing list