Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

cc-licenses - Re: License Proposal: Non-Copyleft Free Content License

cc-licenses AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Development of Creative Commons licenses

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: Thomas Uwe Gruettmueller <sloyment AT gmx.net>
  • To: Discussion on the Creative Commons license drafts <cc-licenses AT lists.ibiblio.org>
  • Subject: Re: License Proposal: Non-Copyleft Free Content License
  • Date: Wed, 12 Nov 2003 19:51:08 +0100

Hi Glenn, (IANAL TINLA)

Thank you for your answer, and please apologize my delay.

On Sonntag 02 November 2003 04:07, Glenn Otis Brown wrote:
> Thanks for writing. I may be missing your point here -- in
> which case, let me know -- but every Creative Commons license
> that does not include a "share alike" provision is a
> non-copyleft license.

Sorry, my fault. What I had in mind was a non-copyleft license
that is compatible with CC-SA and other similar licenses (the
EFF OAL, the Linuxtag Green Open Music License etc.).

> I am going by the general GNU GPL
> definition of copyleft, meaning a license that requires
> licensees to offer derivations back to the public on exactly
> the same terms they were offered.
>
> I suspect you are working from a different definition of
> copyleft: a license that imposes _no_ requirements on
> licensees other than, say, continued notice of the license
> terms.

Not at all. To impose no requirements at all is just a special
case of a non-copyleft license, propably the most compatible. It
is almost identical to a PD work.

The license (draft) below does not require continued notice of
the license terms. I don't really think it is neccessary.

> If that's the case, then you're right: we have no
> license like that. We've considerd one before but thought
> that the demand for it might be too limited.

What I am looking for is a license that is similar in spirit to
the CC-SA (Allow everything (like PD), as long as these freedoms
are preserved (Copyleft)). However, I have not found a license
so far that does this consequently in every aspect:

1. The license should be applicable on every work, not just
music (The DSL and CC-SA are applicable on any content).

2. Authors should not be required to give a warranty. It should
be posible, but always optional (the EFF OAL and the CC
licenses enforce it).

3. The license should grant rights on all actions that are
forbidden by Copyright or Authors Rights Law -- not just
copying, distribution, modification, performance, but also
broadcasting, public playback etc. (I am not aware of any
license that does this.)

4. The license should be a commonly accepted standard license.
The current attempts (EFF OAL, DSL, GLtOML, CC-SA and several
others) are incompatible and thus split the commons.

Not only do I have difficulties to find a license for my own
music, I also cannot recommend a license to other people. So,
for the above things, I would even consider doing without the
copyleft, if there was a license that fully met requirements 1,
2 and 3.

- - - - -
> On Sat, 1 Nov 2003 03:01:02 +0200, "Thomas Uwe Gruettmueller"
> <sloyment AT gmx.net> said:

> > I have noticed that there is not yet a non-copyleft free
> > content license on your website.

It has to be "a non-copyleft free content license, compatible
with the CC-SA license"

> > THE WORK COMES AS IS, WITHOUT ANY WARRANTY, to the extent
> > permitted by applicable law.

I would also add "If not otherwise stated," in order to enable
third parties to offer such warranty.

cu,
Thomas }:o{#
-- - http://217.160.174.154/~sloyment/ - --
"Look! They have different music on the dance floor..."




Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page