[cc-community] Intellectual Highway Department

rob at robmyers.org rob at robmyers.org
Wed May 31 11:57:27 EDT 2006


Quoting Greg London <teloscorbin at gmail.com>:

> Yes. This morning on the commute to work, the idea of using
> a sunset approach to a certain niche of projects could possibly
> modify the terrain on which it's built. The specific project that
> came to mind was "Elephant Dreams".

Elephants dream was paid for by pre-sales (effectively SPP) and is now 
available
BY as a torrent.

I believe that a sunset clause would have killed interest and pre-sales. The
project would not have happened. Sunset is bad for people who use it, as they
create uncertainty around their own sales. People will just wait for the
sunset.

That said it might be interesting to apply a sunset to the angels project, as
that seems to want to be NC at the moment.

> So, for a software project that wants to have a small
> team working long hours to create it, software versions
> are a natural dividing point to have gnu-gpl on the old
> versions and still make money on the new.

As Eric Raymond (I can't believe I'm quoting him positively :-) ) points out,
most software is written in-house, not for external sales. Money is not made
directly on it.

> A movie project could be built by a smallish team working
> long hours (because it isn't chunkable),

Like Elephants Dream. They worked very long hours I believe. :-)

But movies are chunkable. The average blockbuster is now rendered by a 
number of
different effects houses. The script is derived multiple times before 
shooting.
And actors need never meet. I'm not saying this is a good way of doing things,
but it is chunked. :-)

> but there isn't
> a natural boundary for versioning that makes a new
> version better than an older version.

They could get some money to fix the character animation. I'd pay for that.

> (You could do
> something like Red Versus Blue, where you're putting
> out shorts every week, and then sell a subscription, but
> if you just have one movie, you're sort of screwed there)

Back to the old Flash Gordon shorts then. Yay! :-)

> I still think that were CC-Sunset to be made available,
> a lot of authors who had contributed to CC-SA would
> switch to CC-Sunset. And I think that's a very bad
> outcome.

Yes.

> The benefit of CC-Sunset seems to be only for
> those niche projects that can't get started any other
> way. And once it did switch to CC-SA, I wonder
> how much the availability of CC-Sunset would
> pull potential contributers away from the niche project
> as they try to do their own Sunset thing.

Yes, it is a licensing solution to a perceptual problem.

> And I'm not convinced that CC should just
> try it and see how it works.
> If a lousy license is released, it can be bad
> publicity and a bad rap for liberal licensing
> schemes in general.

Absolutely.

Incidentally,:

http://geekz.co.uk/lovesraymond/

especially:

http://geekz.co.uk/lovesraymond/archive/show-them-the-code

:-)

- Rob.




More information about the cc-community mailing list