[cc-licenses] Subject: Re: Version 3.0 - List Discussion Responses
mia at creativecommons.org
Sat Sep 23 18:56:10 EDT 2006
it's always good to toy with new ideas about how to improve the CC
i think there are three reasons to not consider trying to implement
this within the next month in which we are hoping to finalize version
3.0. one substantive, one practical and one procedural.
the substantive one is that, on taking the temperature of the "CC
community" it, for the most part, seems to agree that putting
restrictions on the ability of downstream licenses to place TPM on
content in such a way as to thwart the intent and effect of the
licenses is a bad thing.
the practical consideration is that allowing people to mix and match
their license terms would add more complexity to the license
selection process. when one considers that there has, to date, been
very little in terms of a demonstrated community need for allowing CC
content to be TPMed at the discretion of the licensee, the additional
complexity seems unwarranted.
the procedural consideration is that we are so far down the 3.0
process so far, that to try to introduce a completely new idea such
as this would delay getting to version 3.0 by about another 12 months...
On Sep 23, 2006, at 2:33 PM, Eric Garner wrote:
> Why not break the non-TPA language out of the ND, NC, SA, etc.
> licenses and make it a completely separate option called "N-TPA" or
> something like that? This would get the non-TPA language out of the
> way for Debian's review of all the other licensing options,
> wouldn't it? It would also make application of the non-TPA language
> a completely deliberate act on the part of the licensor, thus
> removing any doubt. Just an idea.
> cc-licenses mailing list
> cc-licenses at lists.ibiblio.org
More information about the cc-licenses