[cc-licenses] Restricting Derivative Works
zotz at 100jamz.com
Mon Jun 26 09:23:48 EDT 2006
On Sunday 25 June 2006 10:15 pm, Greg London wrote:
> > What if, instead of an assignment, there was a grant.
> > Something like Bruce does over at technocrat.net:
> And if my grandmother had wheels, she'd be a wagon.
Hey, if that was the case, do you think she could have been in that new Disney
> The public still ends up with a CC-ND work, plus
> a number of modifications that they can't even
> apply to the work without Phil's permission.
> If Phil were to take down his site, all contributers
> are screwed.
> Really, drew, I don't understand why you're arguing this.
Mostly as a mental experiment/excercise. Again, if I were to propose any
cource of action, it would be to make the works BY-SA and be done with it.
The mental experiment is to try and think up the conditions necessary to have
the works act like BY-SA "on-wiki" and BY-ND "off-wiki" while providing for a
continuation on the part of a member of the public or a third party
contributor in the case the original wiki goes "off-net."
I don't think it is worth doing as, as I stated in a previous post, in order
to find and deal with "private violators" wou will need to use nasty
So, you go to all of this effort for what I see as no net benefit over BY-SA.
That said, if someone cannot see a way to use the current CC licenses to do
what they want and are going to craft custome licenses, I rather they do it
in as BY-SA way as possible.
If the protections I put forth were in place and they actually would work the
way I think, I might contribute to such a project. It would depend if it were
a purely functional site or an artistic site. For art, no. Whereas, I am none
to interested in contributing to any CC licensed project that is not using
BY-SA because they do not protect me in the way I wish.
> Yeah, Phil, and anyone else who wants to, can craft their
> own license, and do whatever they want to do with their
> works. The simple fact is that the currently available
> licenses have a history of showing that they work,
> that they work for protecting a works Freedom, that they
> work making sure the work remains Shared, and absolutely
> NOTHING Phil has said here indicates that those already
> existing licenses wouldn't do the job.
Huh? The currently available CC licenses (all of them) have a proven history
of doing this? (I think I know what you mean, but did you word this right?)
> Instead, Phil has decided that he knows better than
> two decades worth of projects licensed under FLOSS
> licenses. And to call him on it is, apparently, to
> insult his character.
I think you will see that my first post to him on this thread pointed out
where I thought he read this wrong and that you were talking a general "you"
and not specifically adressing him as him.
> If Phil wants to maintain the
> Freedom of the work and make sure the work remains
> Shared, then there are proven licenses to do that:
> GNU-GPL or CC-SA.
> if he wishes to use CC-ND, and several overlapping
> contracts that he crafted himself, it's his right
> to do so, and I believe I even explained to him what
> he would need to do in one of my first responses on
> this thread. But I won't buy into his claims that whatever
> he comes up with is better than copyleft or sharealike,
> or that his project has anything to do with freedom
> or sharing.
See this link:
There can be new licenses that are copyleft.
I think you may be able to craft a set of licenses and agreements that act
very much like copyleft / the gpl. The one thing I can't see how to do is
preserve the right to private copies as you are setting out specifically to
remove this right. And if I read the original concerns right, it is this
exact reason for not using BY-SA in the first place.
I certainly think you can prevent anyone from having a privileged position vis
a vis anyone else.
In any case, I fully understand you asking me this as I surprised even myself
by spending so much time on something not directly to copyleft matters.
all the best,
(da idea man)
Record a song and you might win $1,000.00
More information about the cc-licenses