[cc-community] License Deed Icons
Robert Atwood
lists at atwood.org.uk
Wed Mar 12 21:47:52 EDT 2008
SOunds like a good idea to me FWIW ... with the caveat that in some
cases simplifying to a few icons may be too much oversimplification,
that seems to be a problem that could be, IMHO, with the GFDL mentioned
at the beginning of this thread... I gues you put a (by) and a (sa) but
then you need somehting that says (and with invariant) and(variable)
and (front matter) and bla bla bla. Then you get a lot of icons.
Terry Hancock wrote:
> Relating to a recent comment about creating "deeds" for non-CC licenses:
>
> Benj. Mako Hill wrote:
>> <quote who="Terry Hancock" date="Thu, Feb 28, 2008 at 10:20:39PM -0600">
>>> Presumeably, the sponsoring organizations for those licenses could
>>> provide a similar "deed" if they wanted to. Alternatively, a neutral
>>> organization like http://freedomdefined.org might decide to take it on.
>> That's a great suggestion. I think we should!
>
> With that kind of enthusiasm, I can see this happening. It's not that
> hard, after all.
>
> What would be the trademark situation w.r.t. using the CC's by-now-very-
> familiar license/deed identification symbols -- the circles with icons
> to represent "By", "SA", "NC", "ND", as well as the additional ones for
> the source code requirement (used in CC's GPL deed) and the "right to
> copy", "right to modify" buttons?
>
> It seems to me that if there were to be a community of "deeds" published
> by various organizations, it would be highly desirable for the community
> if a common graphical language were used in doing so.
>
> I think CC asserts trademark rights in these symbols, however.
>
> Which could lead to a possibly-unintended consequence...
>
> If we must avoid using the CC logos, then we'll create our own (I could
> trivially do this and then free-license the result), which would then
> take the place of these symbols on everybody else's "deeds". This would
> involve many more licenses and license stewards than CC has.
>
> Which would then put CC in a minority position, using a non-standard
> graphology. Which would probably motivate CC to adopt the new standard
> symbols, and abandon their old ones, anyway.
>
> If, OTOH, CC simply freed those symbols (NOT the (CC) symbol, of
> course), then those could form the core of a standard graphology to
> communicate licensing terms and rights concisely.
>
> Opinions? Is CC interested in avoiding this consequence, or should I
> just go ahead with a competing standard? Obviously, I'd be even more
> happy to just extend the CC graphology than to make up a new one.
>
> Cheers,
> Terry
>
More information about the cc-community
mailing list