[cc-licenses] Granularity on non-commercial restrictions
zotz at 100jamz.com
Wed Nov 23 07:35:05 EST 2005
On Wednesday 23 November 2005 06:17 am, Stefan Tiedje wrote:
> Sorry for coming back late to the thread...
> drew Roberts wrote:
> > The problem I see with ideas like this is that they will "gum up the
> > works" and that will not necessarily be a good thing. Ted Nelson was
> > looking to solve this payment problem years ago with project Xanadu.
> I am a composer of music. For me the cc licenses cover an area where the
> drivative works do not necessarily have hundreds of contributors, they
> usually would have a maximum of two!!! (One original creator f.e. Bach,
> and one arranger).
The state of affairs now, after many years of automatic all rights reserved
coverage for prectically everything and the state of affairs after a creative
commons flourishes hopefully will look very different from each other.
> > I think we solve it by ignroing it. (For now, I do have one idea that I
> > am working on, actually, the work is all but stopped now, that may help,
> > but it remains to be seen.)
> The nc clause opens the cc licenses for a bigger audience of creators,
> which would elsewise completely only covered by way to restrictive
> authors rights associations.
Yes, but since NC is not clearly defined, someone with tendencies like mine is
going to be leery of playing with them at all. Especially where certain
copyright violations can carry jail time.
I do know that it currently seems to be a very popular option. I expect (hope)
that it will become less popular as the more Free licenses prove their worth
> > What I don't want, is something which would require an accountant and a
> > lawyer to work on a project.
> Thats why I wanted to simplify it with a common definition of "fair
> compensation" and two ways to ask for it either "required" or only
So, BY-SA-FCR or BY-SA-FCE or BY-SA? Is this what you would envision in the
I am certainly not against the compensation of the creators though. So long as
it does not gum up the works.
> > Imagine Fair Compensation trouble if you were doing something like
> > knoppix and each contributor specified fair use instead of what they do
> > now.
> My idea certainly would not and is not aimed at those kind of projects.
> But these projects usually do have a Paypal button on their pages, and
> nobody knows how that money is distributed to the contrinutors...
> > Not a pretty thought. Too much innovative stuff will go unmade in my
> > view.
> Much more innovative stuff will not be distributed at all if there are
> no alternatives.
Are we interested in the distribution of innovative stuff, or in the creation
of a thriving creative commons? (I know I brought it up.)
all the best,
More information about the cc-licenses