[cc-community] Intellectual Highway Department

drew Roberts zotz at 100jamz.com
Wed May 31 19:01:54 EDT 2006

On Wednesday 31 May 2006 06:23 pm, Terry Hancock wrote:
> 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.

I am certainly not saying it is worth it, just pointing out a fact.
> Amazingly, we three seem to agree on something.  The existing
> CC-By-NC-SA should be withdrawn.

I think we actually agree on quite a bit more than that. Hopefully by going 
back and forth this will become more clear. If we can reach greater agreement 
as well, so much the better.
> 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.

So, you want to kill the NC fanfics?
> 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.

So, any ideas? Any energy to start such an experiment?
> Cheers,
> Terry

all the best,


ps. btw Terry, did you check out any ideas on large format scanning?
Record a song and you might win $1,000.00

More information about the cc-community mailing list