[cc-licenses] New Generic and ports
zotz at 100jamz.com
Sat Oct 7 11:08:47 EDT 2006
On Saturday 07 October 2006 09:09 am, Andres Guadamuz wrote:
> Henri Sivonen wrote:
> > Considering that Free Software and Open Source has worked fine with
> > English-only licenses, that non-Americans are routinely using the
> > existing U.S./"Generic" CC licenses and that CC now has a "New
> > Generic" license draft that is designed to work globally, what's the
> > point of having ports of the 3.0 series instead of using the "New
> > Generic" with English as the governing language everywhere?
> Comparing FLOSS with CC is a problematic exercise for various reasons.
> While a growing number of the general public is using open source and
> free software, the licences are really applicable to a small minority
> (comparatively) of developers, SMEs and larger enterprises. These people
> tend to be knowledgeable, well-educated and have access to someone who
> can speak English and/or understand the licences. Now contrast this to
> the target audience of Creative Commons. The movement exists to provide
> an easy to understand manner to provide open content to a vast number of
> people. Not everybody understands English, so translation makes a lot of
> sense to a movement that has such a potentially large number of users.
> I always use "my mother" test when thinking of target audiences. Would
> my mother ever be a target user of the GPL? Not in a million years. I
> may convince her someday to install FLOSS in her computer, but it's not
> likely. On the other hand, she has a digital camera and is writing a
> children's novel, both are subject matter for CC licences. She does not
> speak English, so if we don't translate the licences, she would never
> know about open content and free culture.
> Similarly, it is easier to draft technology-specific licences that apply
> globally. Software licences are a good example, although there are
> several problems with validity in each recipient country. There is a
> much bigger problem for creative works and trying to apply American
> principles to a wide variety of works. These are just some that have
> given regional drafters some headaches:
> - Contract formation: In most countries licences are contracts, so the
> draft has to accommodate local contract formation principles.
> - Moral rights: software does not have moral rights in many
> jurisdictions. On the other hand, all creative works have moral rights,
> and the range of protection in this area alone is staggering.
> - Drafting rules: In the UK we have a requirement by law to draft
> consumer contracts in user-friendly language.
> - Quirky copyright implementation rules: different countries have
> considerably different rules on the application of things like
> technological protection measures (just to name one), or that have
> considerably different definitions for some licence elements. Drafting
> licences that recognise these local idiosyncrasies tend to be more
> likely to stand up in court.
While I can understand this, can someone talk to the issue of a long train of
derivative works with the various generations being released under different
county specific versions of the "same" license?
all the best,
(da idea man)
National Novel Writing Month
Join me and write a novel in 30 days! Dont delay!
More information about the cc-licenses