Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

cc-licenses - Re: Does CC-SA require a modifiable copy?

cc-licenses AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Development of Creative Commons licenses

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: "Greg London" <email AT greglondon.com>
  • To: "Discussion on the Creative Commons license drafts" <cc-licenses AT lists.ibiblio.org>
  • Subject: Re: Does CC-SA require a modifiable copy?
  • Date: Fri, 26 Nov 2004 12:05:17 -0500 (EST)


Rob Myers said:
> On Friday, November 26, 2004, at 03:36PM, Greg London <email AT greglondon.com>
> wrote:
>
>>It would be an interesting edge-of-the-envelope case
>>if someone distributed a work CC-SA, but the only way
>>to use that work was through the purchase of their
>>software package for $199.
>>
>>If Poser handed out 3-D models for CGI stuff, but they
>>were all in the Poser format or something.
>>
>>I suppose it would simply push Blender to move to support
>>that format or something.
>>
>>CC-SA intends for anyone to be able to sell a work for profit.
>>I don't think distributing a work in a proprietary format
>>so that only you can make money from it is really the spirit
>>of that license.
>>
>>If that's what you want, be straight about it by using CC-SA-NC.
>>
>>Personally, I hate SA-NC, but better to be honest up front than
>>to say "our stuff is CC-SA" but then have it in a format that
>>requires the purchase of your software to use it.
>
> Without the conceptual framework of FSF-style-"Freedom", and without
> ASCII-style ubiquitous formats for media, how does one decide when work is
> accessible enough? OpenOffice didn't run on the Mac for ages (it's still
> barely usable), if work was released in OOO format it would be as
> inacessible
> as Word format to some people. With "Freedom", OOO formatted work better
> than
> Word on principle, but without it, it's just another format that some people
> couldn't read.
>
> If I want the source to a Beastie Boys track, I'll need to buy Logic. I
> don't
> know of an open multitrack sample sequencing format. 3D formats are terribly
> incompatible, so even if Blender is Free, so are Ayam and others, all of
> which
> have incompatible formats, limiting Freedom. Even 2D vector formats aren't
> universal. I distribute my work in three different formats, for example.
>
> Notable exceptions aside, professionals don't tend to use Free tools, yet.
> So
> using more popular but less flexible formats to give end-users easier acces
> will limit professional access to the source material. This is the opposite
> of
> Free Software, where keeping the sources simple is good for developers who
> can
> then make more complex forms (binaries) for end-users.

All true, and it would STILL be interesting to watch.
"Survivor" never interested me, but a good IP Law case does.

Just to make it more interesting, what if the format
included some form of software patent and encryption?
The patent prevents duplication of functionality, and
encryption prevents decryption without permission.


> And if I have an oil painting, how do I ensure that's in an editable format?
> ;-)

At least, an oil painting would qualify as the
human-generated source work, as opposed to
the computer-compiled binary or proprietary format.

Hey, if someone is using a computer with punch cards,
then punch cards are the source code. That it isn't
editable isn't the programmer's fault.


> - Rob.
> _______________________________________________
> cc-licenses mailing list
> cc-licenses AT lists.ibiblio.org
> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-licenses
>
>


--
Hungry for a good read? Crave science fiction?
Get a taste of "Hunger Pangs" by Greg London.
http://www.greglondon.com/hunger/




Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page