[cc-community] Want your comments and feedback on Selling CC-By-SA-NC

drew Roberts zotz at 100jamz.com
Wed Oct 13 22:19:48 EDT 2010

On Wednesday 13 October 2010 21:06:36 Mike Linksvayer wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 13, 2010 at 5:56 PM, drew Roberts <zotz at 100jamz.com> wrote:
> > On Wednesday 13 October 2010 20:42:42 Greg Grossmeier wrote:
> > > Already done, in a way:
> > > http://creativecommons.org/weblog/entry/8051
> >
> > Yes but too cumbersome. Consider:
> >
> > This song is released under a Creative Commons License that is approved
> > for Free Cultural Works.
> >
> > This song is released under a FreeCC license.
> I'd like to reply to other parts of this thread when I have time, but just
> want to point out this is a non-solution. "This song is released under a CC
> license" is already not good practice. "This song is released under CC
> BY-SA" is. You may only care whether a work is under one set of licenses or
> another, but the general case is that the specific license matters (and
> indeed it does) and that's what we encourage. If you want to say "This song
> is released under a free cultural works license" or even "free license" and
> (be very sure to) link to the license actually used, go ahead! Compare with
> a) "software released under a GNU license"
> a1) imaginary world in which GPL-NC exists and we're still waiting on more
> than Hurd: "software released under a Free-GNU license"
> b) "software released under GPLv3"
> c) "software released under a free software license"
> To me (a) and (a1) are not useful, and that's what you want CC to do.
> Instead, do equivalent of (b) or (c).

It is not getting me to do it, it is getting the rest of the world to do it.

I was going to say even @creativecommons on identi.ca does this quite often, 
but in trying to confirm, I see it is mostly doing it right. The first iffy 
example I got is:

Massive new remix contest from @indabamusic and @Metric! $10k in prizes - 
submissions are CC-licensed: http://bit.ly/bmZ4J8

The thing is, until CC gets behind promoting a FreeCC brand (or something the 
same with a better name) then when asking for this from all the various 
websites, one is basically brushed off as asking for something unimportant. I 
think the people going the extra step need a little help and love.

Consider: http://www.kompoz.com/compose-collaborate/staff.list.project

I have been asking for ages that the license be indicated in this list either 
by way of letter code of colour or icon. Nothing. 

Same with their front page:


So for every project, one has to click on it and go to the project's page to 
check the license.

Kompoz is not the only site with these sorts of issues.

The think is Mike, I don't care so much that my particular suggestion gets 
implemented. I care that we move towards a solution and making the situation 
better. It would surprise me if my idea was the best we could come up with. I 
would be happy with some brainstorming and then some progress.

> Mike

all the best,


More information about the cc-community mailing list