Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

cc-sampling - Re: [cc-sampling] More name

cc-sampling AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Development of the Creative Commons Sampling license (or license option)

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: Lisa Rein <lisarein AT finetuning.com>
  • To: Chris Grigg <chris AT grigg.org>
  • Cc: cc-sampling AT lists.ibiblio.org
  • Subject: Re: [cc-sampling] More name
  • Date: Mon, 15 Sep 2003 22:05:58 -0700

nice breakdown chris!

still not sure what the correct answers are, but thanks for the effort it must have taken to break this down!

lisa


On Monday, September 15, 2003, at 09:41 PM, Chris Grigg wrote:

Of course, but looking at it from the perspective of the CC licensing framework -- a set of orthogonal options, each clearly defined -- the overall message of this license is way more complicated than just "transformations required". In fact, the combination is more complicated than any of the existing CC license terms: "I offer you (anybody) a license to re-use this work (i.e. in derivative works), but only under the following conditions: 1) attribution required, 2) transformative usage required, 3) commercial usage permitted but advertising of other products prohibited."

1) is covered by an existing CC license clause, no problem

2) is new, so we need a name for this. Not too hard -- cut & paste, etc.

3) covers ground that an existing CC license clause (non commercial) already covers, but with the opposite answer (commercial use good), and with a carve-out (ads bad). That's messy. Don't we also need to separate this part out and find a name for it, so it can be offered as an alternative to Non Commercial, i.e. "No Ads"? Otherwise the overall Sampling clause couldn't be combined with the Non Commercial clause.


So I'm thinking maybe this whole thing should just be structured differently. Instead of the current license options...

Require Attribution: Yes | No
Allow Commercial Use: Yes | No
Allow Modifications: Yes | Only if Share Alike | No

...you could have -- or might need to have -- something more like this:

Require Attribution: Yes | No
Allow Commercial Use: Yes | No
Allow Advertising Use: Yes | No
Modifications of your work: Allowed | Require | No
Derivatives Must Share Alike: Yes | No

So one new choice, and one restructured choice, pulling Share Alike out into a separate Y/N option. In this scenario, the 'Sampling License' we've been discussing would be Yes, Yes, No, and Require; note that this way, Share Alike could be answered either way.

-- Chris G.


At 7.03p -0700 2003.09.15, Lisa Rein wrote:
Hi Chris,

I think the point is to *require* transformations. Not to make them an option.

So as not to allow people to re-release songs without really contributing anything to them in the resulting derivative work.

thanks,

lisa


On Monday, September 15, 2003, at 06:57 PM, Chris Grigg wrote:

OK, so I just looked at the CC For-Dummies cartoon (http://creativecommons.org/learn/licenses/comics1 etc.), and thought I should offer that it seems like what we're after, staying consistent with CC vocabulary (esp. "No Derivative Works"), seems more like "No Non-Transformative Derivative Works," or, to invert that into a shorter and positive construction, "Only Transformations OK," or "Transformations Only". Obviously those are awkward, but maybe we can find a more graceful way of saying the same thing?

"Transformations OK" is nicer, but doesn't say anything about the non-transformative cases. You need to retain both the meaning that transformative derivatives are OK, and that non-transformative derivatives aren't. Ideas...?

-- Chris G.
_______________________________________________
cc-sampling mailing list
cc-sampling AT lists.ibiblio.org
http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-sampling

_______________________________________________
cc-sampling mailing list
cc-sampling AT lists.ibiblio.org
http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-sampling





Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page