Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

cc-licenses - Re: [cc-licenses] Granularity on non-commercial restrictions

cc-licenses AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Development of Creative Commons licenses

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: rob AT robmyers.org
  • To: cc-licenses AT lists.ibiblio.org
  • Subject: Re: [cc-licenses] Granularity on non-commercial restrictions
  • Date: Thu, 24 Nov 2005 12:56:57 +0000

Quoting Stefan Tiedje <Stefan-Tiedje AT addcom.de>:

In art its much more likely to have only one generation. I don't even
know one musical piece which is the arrangment of an arrangement.

Any folk music. And I've seen more than one painting of the cruxifiction in my
time. :-)

If
you're going to arrange some music you'd always take the original to
start with. This question has no practical meaning beside programming
and maybe DJing (But even as a DJ you would just pass compensation to
your sources, and those could pass on if necessary).

There have been cases of accidental inclusion of multi-generational samples in
music ("Ride On Time" springs to mind).

For the case of BY-SA-NC-FCR its already possible, as the NC license
does not cover the commercial use. I could just give it away as BY-SA-NC
and additionally independently as FCR. But the sole FCR is missing the
ease of use, because its not wide spread or well known enough.

Lessig says that CC are working on a compensation system called cc.com:

http://creativecommons.org/weblog/entry/5704

The Case of BY-SA-FCE is more complicated, as the license itself would
need a clause which requires to look at the FC-description as part of
the license which must not be removed, though there is no legal
difference in practice in comparison to a pure BY-SA.

A legal license is not the place to "expect" "fairness". :-)

In most cases I could think of BY-SA as the ideal license if I just
could attach something to it which must not affect any legal issues of
the original BY-SA licenes, but is like the obligation to name the
author (BY) to also express the authors other thoughts.

I'm sorry I don't understand this at all.

This could be called (BY+). Its would be like BY, but with the
obligation to add a text, which is not part of the work, but part of the
license.

Do you mean like an FDL invariant section?

[...] And its also always the question about the freedom of whom.

Not on the license discuss list it's not. ;-)

- Rob.





Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page