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: Ricardo Gladwell <president AT freeroleplay.org>
  • To: Discussion on the Creative Commons license drafts <cc-licenses AT lists.ibiblio.org>
  • Subject: Re: Does CC-SA require a modifiable copy?
  • Date: Tue, 30 Nov 2004 14:37:42 +0000

Greg London wrote:
"Should a CC license require a modifiable copy?"

No. The problem is that you're asking the wrong question.
The question is:

"Should a CC license require all human created pieces of teh work?"

Why is that the question? The question is should the CC license require a modifiable, digital copy. I don't think anyone would suggest that the CC license would require "all human created pieces of the work" - that is taking the argument to a ludicrous level.

In that case, no, the artist shouldn't have to include the human
created work. He could, however, photograph it, license that,
and include the photograph with the licese.

But to demand the artist use a particular format, i.e. photoshop,
in CREATING the work has two problems, (1) it puts a restriction
on the artist to the point that they may not be able to create
the same work. Someone just might be better at creating music with
a real drum set, and forcing them to create it on a computer and
distribute it in MIDI format so that people can modify individual
notes is killing the artist so that lazy people can use the work
downstream.

I think it's a little extreme to characterise the down-stream users as 'lazy' and 'killing the artist'. They're no more lazy than the upstream users - after all, they are just exercising their right to create derivative works imparted to them by the SA CCPL.

Similarly, no-one is 'demanding' that artists use Photoshop or any particular format - the suggestion is that a modifiable version of the content be made available - what precisely that format is should probably not be specified in the license. I think you're getting confused with the "source" requirement - that a modifiable copy should be made available so that, for example, you cannot distribute a PDF without a copy of a document in an editable format. The secondary requirement that a transparent, or open copy be made is separate to this.

The other problem (2), is that the OSD says something to the effect
that a license that attaches itself to some particular medium
(5.25 floppy, for example) will not get OSI certified.

I'm sorry but I'm not sure I understand the particular requirement you are mentioning here? Who do you mean by the OSD? Do you mean the Open Source Initiative?

The point is to allow artists to create their works in whatever
method works best for them. For computer programs, it makes sense
to zero in on source code in a text format because that's pretty
much the only way you can compile anything. But for Creative Commons,
you might have a guy whose good with bongo drums, and to say that
he can't record a clip of him playing drums and license it CC because
it isn't an easily modifiable copy is sorta missing the point.

The point is not just to allow artists to create their works any way they wish, but, in the case of Share Alike, also to allow downstream artists to use and modify that work for their own purposes. I don't think a reasonable solution is to totally ignore the needs of one in favor of the other.

I think the confusion arises over what is the definition of "source" for different types of media. There are various 'types' that one can consider and the arguments so far can be summarised as follows:

a) In the simplest case of computer programs, the source is the source code.

b) In the case of pure digital works - such as 3D animations and PDF documents - the source is the original, modifiable files that were used to create and generate the final version of work, which may or may not be the same as the work itself.

c) In the case of non-digital works, such as a painting or a recording of a bongo-drum session, where providing the source would be difficult if not impossible, then we should either i) not require modifiable copy be provided and only require that no-one prevents the copying of the piece (allow photos to be taken, recordings to be made, etc.) or ii) require only that a digital copy of the work should be provided (JPEG, MP3, etc.).

If people like Greg object so strongly, than a source provision could be made optional, although I personally believe this should be mandatory for SA CCPL to ensure that downstream artists can use the work unrestrictively to create derivative works, and the transparency clause should be optional.

--
Ricardo Gladwell
President, Free Roleplaying Community
http://www.freeroleplay.org/
president AT freeroleplay.org




Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page