[cc-licenses] CC strategic elements

Joachim Durchholz jo at durchholz.org
Thu May 10 03:41:05 EDT 2007


Hi all,

I have evaluated the discussion I started as "Unbundling the GPL", and 
have been following a few other threads. Hopefull, I'll be able to 
express a bit more precisely what I'm after, and why I'd want it.


1. My current understanding of the situation

Here's my idea of CC's mission and how it tries to achieve it.

CC is trying to encourage giving away works that are typically covered 
by copyright. This includes literature, music, films, and programs, or 
whatever kinds of works are covered by specific copyright legislation 
anywhere in the world. (It would be desirable to have a complete list of 
classes of works and in which legislations they are covered by special 
rules; discussion fine points would be easier with such a reference.)

One of the things that make CC licenses attractive is that they have 
been checked using the legal resources available to CC. Anybody who 
wishes to use a CC license can do so and rest assured that the license 
will do what he wants, and avoid the cost of legal counseling (if 
somebody gives his works away, he'll be particularly unwilling to incur 
legal costs for that anyway).
I think this part of the strategy has unanimous consent.

The next element is that CC has tried to "quantize" the spectrum of 
licenses. In other words, there is a limited set of substantially 
different licenses to choose from; it's quite likely that for many 
people, there's no license that exactly fits their needs, but there's 
always one that's close enough to their intents.
For users of the works, this means that they will know what they can do 
with a CC-licensed work without looking up the license more than once or 
twice, which makes reusing a work more attractive. This is also 
attractive for licensors because they will know that there will be just 
a minimum amount of misinterpretation.
Currently, this part of the strategy isn't working too well, at least 
not while wearing my licensee hat. The recent proliferation of special 
licenses for specific kinds of works just means that I won't know what a 
license is anymore.
The strategy itself seems to have consent, but there is dispute about 
how fine-grained the quantization should be.

The third element is offering licenses that aren't really Commons 
licenses but that give those who wish to try the CC licenses some 
intermediate steps.
This part of the strategy is controversial. The ND clause if far too 
popular for the taste of many, including Lawrence Lessing himself. 
There's also the example of the FSF that has made the strategic decision 
not to offer an ND variant of the GPL, forcing the users of its licenses 
to make a clear decision.
On the minus side, this strategy has prevented the FSF from creating a 
license for those cases where ND would have been legitimate, polarizing 
the programmer community into those that are "pro" and "contra" and 
preventing an unideological discourse.


2. Recommendations

Here's my idea how CC could improve.

a) CC should never offer more than five or six discernible elements, be 
they license modules that can be combined, or ready-made license 
combinations with a specific name such as PD.
This means retracting most (if not all) special licenses and rewording 
the general license terms so that they cover the specific cases.
For example, SA terms can be reworded to that it covers the intent of 
the GPL without becoming useless for other kinds of works, by adding 
legal fine print that the licensor grants access to the form of the work 
that he used to create (or derive) the work himself.
It might make the CC licenses a viable alternative to the GPL (and 
possibly to other licenses). This would be attractive for those FOSS 
programmers who find the FSF's agenda attractive but don't wish to 
associate themselves with their kind of rhethorics.

b) CC should explain the quantization strategy, to reduce the pressure 
towards finer quantization.
Maybe an explanation on the registratin page for the discussion lists 
would do.
That would be a fine place to explain basic principles, strategies, and 
other policy elements so that participants don't waste everybody's time 
by making unacceptable proposals. The text would have to be reviewed 
occasionally to keep it up-to-date as CC's policies change.)

c) As to the ND issue, it's not clear whether CC should continue to 
offer it or not. There seem to be good reasons to do either.


I'm interested in getting a rough idea where everybody stands on the 
above issues.
This includes the "official" position of the CC.
I'd also like to invite those with whom I had serious flamewars, 
provided that we all can stick to the issues and leave out motives, 
backgrounds, or other personals.

Regards,
Jo



More information about the cc-licenses mailing list