distribution of licenses
zotz at 100jamz.com
Sat Mar 5 10:06:21 EST 2005
On Saturday 05 March 2005 09:47 am, Greg London wrote:
> Todd A. Jacobs said:
> > On Tue, Mar 01, 2005 at 12:43:49AM -0500, Greg London wrote:
> >> Does the ShareAlike addon gain anything? Or is it the reflection of a
> >> lack of understanding of the licenses by users? Do people get caught
> > Sure it does. SA means that someone downstream can't change the terms of
> > the license by making it either more free or more restrictive. SA is a
> > good choice when the content owner wants to ensure that the terms of
> > derivatives can't be modified.
> If a work is licensed CC-NC, no one downstream can make a derivative
> "more free" by making it CC-PD or something. The work and all derivatives
> will always be at least as restrictive as CC-NC.
> Someone could create a derivative work and could slap
> "all rights reserved" on it, but the CC-NC is still
> active and they can't make money off of that work,
> even if they won't Share it with anyone.
> >> up in the idea of "Sharing" their content and so they add ShareAlike
> >> even when it doesn't make sense when you've got NonCommercial in front
> >> of it?
> > I don't see why you think "sharing" should equal "commercial." BY-NC-SA
> > means "do what you like with my work, so long as you don't make money on
> > it." It's a way to reserve monetary potential for the original creator,
> > while still releasing the content into the commons for personal uses or
> > community-based improvements.
> No one has incentive to invest any large amount of effort into a
> CC-NC-SA work because the original author can always trump their
> community-based-improvements with a commercially-paid version.
Greg, if the community's version is better than what the original author can
come up with, wouldn't this tend to diminish the commercial value of what he
Personally, I like BY-SA and would like the 2.x version of SA as an option.
I can imagine circumstances where NC has a place for other than economic
reasons. What about the option for a binding pledge on the part of the
original author to not excercise his right to the commercial option when
> The point of copyleft and sharealike is to keep the work and all
> its derivatives as equals so that no derivative can be taken
> private and compete against the community version of the work.
> CC-NC-SA not only doesn't keep all the derviatives equal,
> it witholds the commercial rights to the work upfront,
> which then can be used by the author at a later date to
> compete against any "community based improvements".
> An author who releases a work CC-NC-SA is reserving the
> right to compete against the community, therefore the
> community has no incentive to contribute improvements
> of any significance.
> This means "community-based-improvements" have the same
> amount of incentive under CC-NC as they do CC-NC-SA.
> Either way, the author is reserving the right to
> compete against anything the community might come up with.
> The -SA option just means the fans can't compete against
> themselves. whoop-de-doo. As long as the Author holds
> the trump card, and can compete against the fans commercially,
> it's an irrelevant difference.
> Just stop for a second and read the name of the license.
> SHARE ALIKE.
> How do you "share and share alike", "one for all and
> all for one" while witholding commercial rights
> exclusively for yourself?
> It is an oxymoron.
> > Personally, I think BY-NC-SA is the most likely license to gain
> > widespread acceptance for textual works, and it looks like the pie chart
> > currently bears that out.
> Yeah, and "share-ware" was a really popular licensing model
> a while ago, but it eventually faded out.
> > Remember, the copyright owner can always
> > release a work under a more open license in the future, but can never
> > put the genie back in the bottle. There's nothing wrong with reserving
> > rights; BY-NC-SA strikes a nice balance, IMHO.
> balance between what?
> author and community?
> It seems its a balance for the author to quell his fear
> of just going CC-NC and so decides to slap an additional
> restriction on it.
> cc-licenses mailing list
> cc-licenses at lists.ibiblio.org
border="0" alt="Buy my stuff at Lulu!">
More information about the cc-licenses