[cc-community] Identi.ca - my new Creative-Commons-enabled microblogging service
drew Roberts
zotz at 100jamz.com
Thu Jul 3 22:00:53 EDT 2008
On Thursday 03 July 2008 21:09:10 Nathan Yergler wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 3, 2008 at 5:53 PM, drew Roberts <zotz at 100jamz.com> wrote:
> > On Thursday 03 July 2008 18:46:09 Terry Hancock wrote:
> >> drew Roberts wrote:
> >> > On Wednesday 02 July 2008 15:59:03 Rich Vázquez wrote:
> >> >> When you sign up, you have to check:
> >> >> My text and files are available under Creative Commons
> >> >> Attribution 3.0 except this private data: password, email address, IM
> >> >> address, phone number. http://identi.ca/main/register
> >> >
> >> > I do not think this answers the question(s) I asked.
> >>
> >> ISTM that it does...
> >>
> >> The site is all CC-By and you have to agree to this to use it. Don't
> >> like CC-By? Don't use the service.
> >
> > Terry, not to be contrary, but in fact, it doesn't. From my original
> > post:
> >
> > [So, I went searching and from the site:
> >
> > "Unless otherwise specified, contents of this site are copyright by the
> > contributors and available under the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0."]
> >
> > So, the site puts forward the possibility of contents under a different
> > license. I am asking about the mechanics of this and not getting an
> > answer to the questions I am asking.
> >
> > Do I have to manually change the license each time I post? Can I set this
> > as a user preference? What?
>
> I don't speak for identi.ca, only as a user. What I've observed is
> that it does not offer an opportunity to change your license, either
> on a per post basis or as a preference.
Thank you for this info, I find it useful. If anyone knows this to be
mistaken, I would find the correction usefule as well.
>
> > Or is the language misleading and in fact, is BY the only allowable
> > license on the site as you suggest?
>
> I guess my interpretation of that language did not match yours; I
> assumed it was the hypothetical "otherwise" -- as in, perhaps there's
> an image that gets used on the front page, etc, that is not CC
> licensed. I suppose the "otherwise noted" could also refer to the
> copyright status. That is, where otherwise noted the copyright is
> held by the site creator (not contributor) *and* it's available under
> the CC BY 3.0 license.
This:
http://identi.ca/doc/privacy
"Almost all the text and files that users upload to this site is available
under the site license (see the license block at the bottom of this page)."
makes it fairly that they really want cc BY but still seems to leave open the
possibility that a user can put uptext or files with some other license.
>
> >> Personally, I think this is fine for the purpose: it makes no sense to
> >> apply a copyleft on such tiny works as the overhead would be burdensome.
> >>
> >> But of course, if you wanted to use a different license, you won't be
> >> happy with these terms.
> >>
> >> Cheers,
> >> Terry
> >
> > all the best,
> >
> > drew
all the best,
drew
More information about the cc-community
mailing list