distribution of licenses

drew Roberts zotz at 100jamz.com
Sun Mar 6 20:34:59 EST 2005


On Sunday 06 March 2005 06:48 pm, Greg London wrote:
> drew Roberts said:
> > On Sunday 06 March 2005 03:40 pm, Greg London wrote:
> >> Rob Myers said:
> >> > On 6 Mar 2005, at 04:12, Greg London wrote:
> >> >> I'd be fine with something like "CC-NC-FAN".
> >> >> Or "FC" for Fan Club, or whatever.
> >> >> At least it would be an honest description.
> >> >
> >> > The licenses are modular. SA just means the other terms of the license
> >> > must be re-applied to derived works. I don't think this is any kind of
> >> > misrepresentation.
> >>
> >> But the name "ShareAlike" has natural connotations
> >> that conflict with how NC-SA really works.
> >
> > I think some of us are finally getting a hang on what your "real" issue
> > with this license/terminology is. Do you think we are getting it?
>
> I think I'm finally finding the words to express my point, yes.
>
> ;)

Good, sometimes the batting back and forth over and over again pays small 
benefits.
>
> >> "Ooh, share and share alike. Wait, no, not really"
> >> "Oooh, Free Software. Wait, no, not really."
> >
> > Unfortunately, in english, I don't know if we can solve the problem with
> > the double meaning of the word free. I don't think they have the problem
> > in other languages. I think we can try and educate better by pointing out
> > that the phrase you have a problem with is meant to be a hint as to a
> > different meaning for the word free and is not meant to be an analogy as
> > we have discussed in the past.
>
> Well, the "free" confusion is a done deal. Too late to fix it now.
> "Open Source" tried to reframe it, but the "free" die-hards held on.

Well, I am one of the Free die-hards. If the term "Open Source" did not suffer 
from its own issues, I might have been more inclined to give it a go.
>
> I'd simply like to see a different term for "ShareAlike"
> anytime "ShareAlike" is combined with other restrictions, like NC.
> Fix the problem before it gets too far along.
>
> >> I guess we'd rather use "free" and "share" and other hip
> >> and cool words even if we have to put footnotes
> >> at the bottom to describe what they really mean.
> >
> > Do you have a better word than free in mind?
>
> Not for "free". I think it's cooked.

If there is, in fact, a better word, you never know. Let your mind percolate 
some.
>
> For ShareAlike, the only thing I came up with was "FanClub".
> It isn't as "sexy" as sharealike, but it has natural
> connotations that match the reality of a CC-NC-SA license.
> There is an author and there are fans. The author does
> commercial sales of his work. The fans do non-commercial stuff.
> That is exactly what CC-NC-SA does. Or maybe "FanCommunity"
> because it does create a community, but it is noncommercial only.
>
> Anyway, now that I finally explained my point, maybe someone
> a little more creative can come up with some alternative names.
>
> ShareAlike could then be reserved for CC-SA only, which would
> be true to its namesake.
>

What if an author could bind himself to NC as well when releasing BY-NC-SA? 
Would SA fit in that case?

all the best,

drew



More information about the cc-licenses mailing list