[cc-community] Intellectual Highway Department

Terry Hancock hancock at anansispaceworks.com
Wed May 31 18:23:58 EDT 2006


drew Roberts wrote:
>  On Wednesday 31 May 2006 09:49 am, Greg London wrote:
> >> NC *is* a commons, or so CC would have us think.
> >
> > if you can show me where CC uses the word "Commons" to describe
> > CC-NC, I will forward them my request that they fix it.

That's just playing with words.  CC doesn't have to use the word
commons with specific reference to CC-NC.  There are many other
ways of expressing the same concepts, and the mere fact that the
organization promoting it is called the "Creative Commons"
biases all of its statements to imply commons functionality.

If your name contains "Commons" and you promote a license at
all, then you are calling it a "Commons License" unless you explicitly
say otherwise each and everytime you sell it.  It's like cigarettes --
you need a health label, or you're being irresponsible.

Drew:
 > Greg:
> > Way back when CC was first starting it's licenses, I was adamant
> > that ShareAlike not be combinable with any other license, for the
> > very reason that ShareAlike implies a commons and NonCommercial is
> > the antithesis of a commons.
> >
> > I don't have a problem with CC-NC but I do have a problem with
> > CC-NC-SA. If anyone is using CC-NC-SA, they may as well switch to
> > CC-NC because there is no share-aliking that will occur on any
> > "commons" sort of scale that would need ShareAlike to protect it.
> >
> > If you want to get rid of a license, get rid of that combination
> > that is CC-NC-SA.
>
>  I don't like it either, and I remember some of those old threads.
>  However, the one thing NC-SA gives over plain NC is that the
>  derivatives will not be taken to NC-ND. (I don't know if some would
>  consider this an advantage or not.)

I certainly think it is too minor a point to be worth the negative effects.

Amazingly, we three seem to agree on something.  The existing
CC-By-NC-SA should be withdrawn.

I'd then like to see NC imply the terms of existing NC+ND.  People could
always keep using the NC 2.0 if they are really attached to it.

I'd like to see a new NC-Sunset-to-SA option.  Greg and Rob
feel that it would sap works from the SA pool (note that, using Greg's
reasoning, it can't possibly do this because of copyleft -- they both mean
actually that it would attract works which might otherwise go straight
into the SA commons), while simultaneously disagreeing with me that
it will attract a class of artists who currently use By-NC-SA.

We have no real data, so I'm not sure how to proceed with that idea.

But as Greg London and Mike Linksvayer have both noted, it is possible
to do this outside of CC.  A pilot project could try it out via a 
super-license
that just references the two CC licenses (during proprietary period and
after).  It'd be complicated, and start out at a disadvantage because of
the lack of endorsement, but it could be done.

I would suggest not calling this sunset option "NC+SA", but instead
giving it a new identity, and *always* applying a sunset. This would me
that NC 2.x licenses don't automatically upgrade to it, so the sunset
doesn't affect existing works.

Cheers,
Terry

-- 
Terry Hancock (hancock at AnansiSpaceworks.com)
Anansi Spaceworks http://www.AnansiSpaceworks.com




More information about the cc-community mailing list