[cc-community] Intellectual Highway Department

drew Roberts zotz at 100jamz.com
Wed May 31 16:02:24 EDT 2006

On Wednesday 31 May 2006 11:57 am, rob at robmyers.org wrote:
> 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 just watched a show on PBS the other night with Robert Altman and Garrisone 
Keillor being interviewed about a movie they made. IMDB shows it is probably 
"A Prairie Home Companion"


I think it was Altman who said they shot the whole thing in twenty some days.

I am sure many non-professional theatre groups have people put in that kind of 
time for free.

You might not be able to make block busters, but if you picked the right 
scripts, I bet you could make feature films for release BY-SA.

Also see:


And how much time and money do people spend on their hobbies? Can we turn the 
creation of copyleft art into a hobby?

> > 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.
all the best,

Record a song and you might win $1,000.00

More information about the cc-community mailing list