[cc-licenses] New Generic and ports
hsivonen at iki.fi
Sat Oct 7 17:47:15 EDT 2006
On Oct 7, 2006, at 16:09, Andres Guadamuz wrote:
> 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
> tend to be knowledgeable, well-educated and have access to someone who
> can speak English and/or understand the licences.
Moreover, if you don't accept the license, you don't get the rights,
so a prospective licensee has an incentive to figure it out.
> Now contrast this to
> the target audience of Creative Commons. The movement exists to
> 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.
The official party line has been that they are not mere translations
but ports. Yet, even people close to CC tend to think of them as mere
translations. Of course, in practice people will treat them as
translations. If there's a language-independent photo licensed under,
say, a Dutch CC license, most people around the world are going to
read the Dutch license but a license in some other language.
> She does not
> speak English, so if we don't translate the licences, she would never
> know about open content and free culture.
But they aren't mere translations but ports. How is the rest of the
world going to know what weird stuff crept into the license when
> - Contract formation: In most countries licences are contracts, so the
> draft has to accommodate local contract formation principles.
So does CC believe that people in country X can't use works licensed
under a license from country Y, because the license from country Y
doesn't follow the conventions of X?
Also, there's a much more tangible problem if it is true that people
in country X *must* use licenses for country X: If I write in
English, which I do a lot, using a Finnish-language license makes no
sense. (Due to the way the world works, this is not symmetric and an
English-language license for Finnish-language content is still
> - Moral rights: software does not have moral rights in many
> jurisdictions. On the other hand, all creative works have moral
> and the range of protection in this area alone is staggering.
Why can't the licenses contain a blanket waiver for what is waivable
and that CC doesn't want specifically to retain? What is not waivable
cannot be waived anyway.
> - Drafting rules: In the UK we have a requirement by law to draft
> consumer contracts in user-friendly language.
Can't the Generic version be in user-friendly language? Does the U.S.
*require* unfriendly language to be used?
Moreover, why does CC consider the licenses consumer contracts? A
mere consumer doesn't need the license to view the work. The license
is needed for distribution and creating derivative works at which
point the "consumer" is no longer in the role of a consumer. Again,
if a consumer appealed to law to make the license invalid, the joke
would be on him, because he wouldn't then get the right granted by
> - 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.
How does this work for use cases like Flickr? The content creation,
consumption and remixing crosses borders. It isn't realistic that
people only interact within their own country in the official
language of their own country.
hsivonen at iki.fi
More information about the cc-licenses