[cc-licenses] Founders as a module? was Re: Getting to Version 3.0
zotz at 100jamz.com
Mon May 22 11:51:01 EDT 2006
On Monday 22 May 2006 10:43 am, Terry Hancock wrote:
> drew Roberts wrote:
> > Putting a timed-release in a module would not have the same legal
> > implications as the founders copyright. I say this because once a
> > person had chosen such a module, CC would not be involved. It would
> > at that point be an agreement between the artist and the public.
> Yes, I agree, and that's what I like about it.
> As I said on one of these sub-threads, I may have erred by using the
> term "Founders' Copyright", and perhaps should've said "Sunset"
> or "Time Release" or something.
> I believe that a time-delayed license module (whatever it's called)
> would be superior to the Founder's Copyright approach. AFAICT,
> there isn't a lot of practical difference between CC-By and Public
> Domain, so ISTM you don't really need stuff to go into the Public
Since I tend to promote copyleft and BY-SA, I would prefer things not to go
public domain or BY but BY-SA.
One big reason is that these are works which I can take advantage of while
those unwilling to play by copyleft rules will keep themselves from. And, as
they push for longer and longer copyright terms, these works remain out of
bounds for them for longer and longer periods. (sort of a petard situation)
> Also, this approach (if done right) would allow you to choose to
> keep the SA module, instead of ditching it, so stuff would become
> CC-By-SA instead of CC-By. I think that could potentially be
> very attractive (I'm not certain, but I think this doesn't require
> anything special -- always applying the time-release to NC and ND,
> with the right choice of license would allow NC-to-By and NC-to-SA
> models by just choosing the right terms -- anything with SA would
> keep it).
> Also, as you argued before, the Founder's Copyright probably isn't
> even legal in "Moral Rights" jurisdictions. Not to mention the fact that
> the name doesn't make any sense outside of the US -- "*whose* Founders?"
> ISTM, it's a US-only license, which is one big strike against it.
> > Here is another thought to further complicate matters...
> > While I am a big BY-SA fan, I might be willing to go the other
> > direction as well. Put a module on my BY-SA works that would allow
> > derivatives to be closed for 3 years at the discretion of the maker
> > of the derivative. Something like that. (I doubt I would go for
> > anything longer than 3 years on things based on my work though. This
> > is an off the cuff remark and the first time I have thought of this.
> > I may very well not like the idea after further thought or
> > discussions, we shall see.)
> Well as I said, this was the Parker/Van Alstyne model. They have a paper
> in which they model the implications of using such licenses. Intriguingly,
> both Eric Raymond and Richard Stallman reviewed this paper, and were
> apparently fairly supportive of the research (I interview Van Alstyne
> afterwards). You might want to read it, to get an idea of whether you
> would like such a world.
> What they wanted to do was to allow the time delays (and other aspects
> of the license) to be parametric.
> Now, it's important to realize that they are economists, not lawyers, so
> they don't really specify how you could make all this legal -- and it would
> probably require some sacrifices of optimization.
> I also should say that I don't necessary "endorse" this paper myself -- I
> just think it's interesting research (same link I cited earlier):
> > Combined with the reverse idea presented above, both camps would be
> > compromising to work with the other. It might fly.
> Well, that's the part I like. ;-)
The more that we can approach one "commons" the more I think I will like it as
all the best,
Record a song and you might win $1,000.00
More information about the cc-licenses