Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

cc-licenses - Re: Extra restrictions on derivative works

cc-licenses AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Development of Creative Commons licenses

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: Glenn Otis Brown <glenn AT creativecommons.org>
  • To: Discussion on the Creative Commons license drafts <cc-licenses AT lists.ibiblio.org>
  • Subject: Re: Extra restrictions on derivative works
  • Date: Tue, 27 Jan 2004 10:21:54 +0900

i don't know what the "mainstream" is. i can explain to you our policy choice and the thinking behind. and then we can wait and see what others say on the point.

you sound as a tad fatalistic here, as if we weren't actually having a conversation. but that's what we're doing.

so what do other people think?




On Jan 28, 2004, at 1:58 AM, Evan Prodromou wrote:

"GOB" == Glenn Otis Brown <glenn AT creativecommons.org> writes:

GOB> They would only be able to put it under by-sa-nc if they
GOB> incorporated some content that was by-sa-nc. And once they
GOB> incorporate that by-sa-nc content, it would clash with that
GOB> copyright owners' wishes. Again, we've got to pick one way or
GOB> the other.

So given the choice of violating the wishes of one or the other
upstream copyright holders, the choice was made to concede to the
person who's most restrictive and stingy (wants built-in
restrictions), at the expense of the person who's most generous and
giving (wants built-in freedoms)? How about just not violating the
wishes of either?

Me> Built-in freedoms are more important than ease of mixing.

GOB> I guess our current position is the opposite. Ease of mixing
GOB> is what the whole thing's about. Or not quite the opposite:
GOB> note that no one could totally appropriate the derived
GOB> content: it would still have be SA'd in some form or other.

It seems to me that the ShareAlike stipulations are specifically _not_
about mixing. If I didn't care about what further restrictions people
put on my work, I wouldn't _use_ ShareAlike. The sa provision means,
"I care about how you license your work, too."

But I guess I'm out of touch with the mainstream in Creative
Commons. It's pretty important to _me_ that:

a) I be able to tell creators of derivative works that I want
all derivatives to be as free as what I'm giving them. The
price for using the fruit of my labor is that they "pay it
forward".

b) I be able to reincorporate corrections, enhancements, and
improvements made in downstream versions back into my source
work.

Me> I realize that the stipulation is for remixing works under two
Me> different CC sa licenses, but that can be trivially evaded by
Me> simply calling the changes an original work under by-sa-nc --
Me> perhaps publishing them independently on an orphan Web page
Me> somewhere -- and "remixing" them with the by-sa version.

GOB> But I certainly wouldn't say that the latter is a "trivially"
GOB> easy way around the problem.

Well, we can disagree about that. (Actually, I don't see any
requirement to _publish_ a work -- they don't even have to put up the
Web page.) Let's just say it's possible and not NP-hard.

~ESP

--
Evan Prodromou <evan AT wikitravel.org>
Wikitravel - http://www.wikitravel.org/
The free, complete, up-to-date and reliable world-wide travel guide
_______________________________________________
cc-licenses mailing list
cc-licenses AT lists.ibiblio.org
http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-licenses





Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page