[cc-community] [cc-licenses] Rant about CC licenses

Emma Carpenter emma.k.carpenter at live.com
Tue Dec 17 09:41:17 EST 2013


On 17/12/2013 1:35 AM, Mitar wrote:
> ")Hi!
> Yes. Of course it is still a hack. It is not really a public domain.
> But just simulation of that. But the main purpose is that it achieves
> an argument of: so many people would like to put their work into
> public domain, but they cannot, yet.
>
> And with such argument we can then make necessary legislation changes
> and then release next version of CC0 license which really makes works
> public domain.
>
> But the main point is that until then authors can declare that they
> would want to put their work into public domain, if this would be
> possible. And users can use it in a more or less equal to public
> domain manner, which would again show to users how powerful it is that
> you have some works into public domain. In the commons. For everybody
> to build upon. Unrestricted.
>
> And CC-X license would tell the same, just that so many people would
> want to put it into public domain after X years, but they cannot, yet.
I do agree that CC0 is still very useful, despite its not being perfect; 
and that it may end up contributing to political pressure to change 
copyright law. I'm fully in favour of the existence and use of CC0. But 
I don't think it's as legally powerful as you are suggesting it is. 
That's not intended to detract from the value of CC0, or from my general 
support of the idea of time-limited licences. I just think you're being 
unrealistic in some respects. :)
> CC licenses are unrevokable and CC-X could be such as well.
I explained how and why CC licences are revocable (in some situations) 
in an earlier email, so I won't repeat myself. And yes - I know that 
reducing the default copyright term is also unlikely to happen, but I 
too don't think we should give up on doing so.

Emma Carpenter


More information about the cc-community mailing list