[cc-licenses] Coloriuris
Mia Garlick
mia at creativecommons.org
Fri Jan 5 14:57:35 EST 2007
comment below.
On Jan 5, 2007, at 11:40 AM, Benj. Mako Hill wrote:
> <quote who="Mia Garlick" date="Fri, Jan 05, 2007 at 11:23:50AM -0800">
>> what makes you think an assignment is involved?
>
> I don't think that. I was just trying to explain what I tought Evan
> was
> saying. I do not trust my Spanish to make any firm statements about
> what
> they are or aren't doing. :)
>
>> the explicit process to opt in for licensors is similar to CC
>> licenses (and other legal tools such as Founders Copyright )in
>> general. there is no opt in process for licensees under a founder's
>> copyright so i don't see any parallels between founders copyright and
>> Coloriuris licenses in this regard. but happy to be convinced
>> otherwise.
>
> Perhaps you can clarify this paragraph because I think I am confused.
> The first sentance and paranthetical aside seems to say that there
> is an
> explicit opt-in process for Founders Copyright. The next sentance says
> that there is not. Perhaps I am confused.
the distinction i was trying to make was between the licens*or* side
and the licens*ee* side. on the licensor-side, all CC legal tools
are opt in - ie. you have to choose to apply it to your work. on the
licensee side, the licensor offers the work to the public under
particular terms so i guess you could say that they are opt in (Ie.
the licensee can choose to use the work under those license terms or
not use it at all or negotiate separate terms) but i was saying that
they are not - at least not in the same was as the Coloriuris
system. all of this is semantics really - i guess what i was trying
to say was that i didn't really see how characterising Founder's
Copyright as "opt in" made it that much different to the core CC
licensing suite.
i guess what i understand to be the main distinction between CC
licenses vis a vis coloriuris is that a Coloriuris licensee is
supposed to click the "I accept" button and expressly "opt in" to
accept the license. that is, as i understand it, a main point of
difference between the Coloriuris model and *all* CC legal tools...
i'd be interested as to why Evan thought this was similar to
Founder's Copyright because I don't quite see the similarities myself
and certainly the Coloriuris criticisms of CC (we were lucky to have
a really good intern who was fluent in English, Spanish & Portuguese
recently to work on translating the Coloriuris site and claims re our
licenses) relate to our licenses, not Founder's Copyright...but
again, happy to be convinced otherwise...
>
> To make sure we are on the same page, I was thinking of the CC
> Founders
> Copyright where, according to the CC description, copyright holders
> sell
> their work to CC for $1 and then get a 14-28 year exclusive license to
> that work, after which the work goes back into the public domain. That
> seems to be both opt-in and using an explicit process that is
> different
> from the other CC licenses.
>
> Later,
> Mako
>
> --
> Benjamin Mako Hill
> mako at atdot.cc
> http://mako.cc/
>
> Creativity can be a social contribution, but only in so
> far as society is free to use the results. --RMS
> _______________________________________________
> cc-licenses mailing list
> cc-licenses at lists.ibiblio.org
> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-licenses
More information about the cc-licenses
mailing list