[cc-community] CCplus Standard License Agreement?
jon at creativecommons.org
Wed Sep 17 01:08:38 EDT 2008
On Tue, 2008-09-16 at 07:44 -0500, Terry Hancock wrote:
> drew Roberts wrote:
> > On Monday 15 September 2008 23:30:37 jonathon wrote:
> >> On Mon, Sep 15, 2008 at 16:05, Terry Hancock wrote:
> >>> YES. I would like to see a "Buy for the Commons" option: the author can
> >>> choose an amount for which they would be willing to release the work
> >>> By-SA for everyone. Once that's paid, the work is free.
> >> Does this example depict what you'd like.
> >> Party A licenses a work under some-bizarre-license, but also has a
> >> "Buy4Commons" of US$1 000 license option.
> >> Party B looks at the work, and figures it is worth spending US$1 000
> >> for the "Buy4Commons" option.
> >> Party C then uses the work under a CC-BY-SA license
> > There is that possibility. There is also the purchase a copy at $20 and when
> > sales reach $1,000 then the work will be licensed BY-SA plan.
> Ask for Low Earth Orbit now; the Moon, later.
> An integrated collective bargaining system -- while a wonderful
> possibility, and more flexible in the end -- will involve a great deal
> more work than simply implementing a simple CC+ site (which is basically
> just an e-store: one transaction, one seller, one product, one customer).
> Meanwhile, third parties provide collective fund-raising services which
> combined with the simple CC+ site, provide _more_ than the proverbial
> "80% functionality" that you and I want to see.
> It'd be great, of course, to recommend using such sites to users (but I
> think word will get around. This would be stuff to put on the "Freedom
> Defined" wiki for example (http://freedomdefined.org). In fact Roland,
> "if you build it, we will come" -- I hereby volunteer to write up both
> services and the possibility of using them together once the possibility
> exists (feel free to bug me about this off list when the time comes).
>  E.g.: http://fundable.org
>  Yes I do realize there are things you can do with an integrated site
> that this doesn't allow: collective, RSPP-type bargaining; combining
> private and public license options (private sales count towards public);
> etc. Which should be a future objective. But now is not the time, IMHO.
Yes, the above are all totally great ideas. Part of the thinking on
*not* providing the commercial contracts with CCPlus was so that others
could provide some type of opportunity around this, as you mention above
and that many times projects already have commercial agreements (which
are not specific to CC/CC+). Also, commercial agreements are often
specific to businesses as lawyers like to get specific.
I would add, that http://ownterms.org is still available as a
third-party space to work on this type of projects that might benefit
multiple people....however it hasn't been updated in a while it seems.
Point being, don't get blocked on moving forward on working on this or
any other standard commercial contracts...
Business Development +
More information about the cc-community