[cc-licenses] New Generic and ports
hancock at anansispaceworks.com
Tue Oct 10 18:34:19 EDT 2006
drew Roberts wrote:
> So, if you did understand me and I am mistaken in that, you woule be
> saying that the fact that someone can redistribute a work makes it a
> part of the commons. (Commercially or non-commercially.) If that is
> what you are saying, I am not sure I buy that. If you are saying
> that, would you care to discuss it further.
Getting a little excited there, Drew? :-)
No, you have a point. The name commons doesn't really work if the idea
is that CC is endorsing each license, instead of (as I have always
understood the organization's goals) offering baby-step licenses so
exploitation-jumpy authors can slowly acclimate to the idea of
free-licensing their content.
As for the role of ND in the commons? It's the spread of ideas,
specifically, without allowing the modification of the specific
embodiments of ideas. I can't edit an ND work, but I can quote from it
and refute or support it. I can also present the work alongside my
In the end, though, I'm much more concerned about "halfway free" terms
like NC, than I am with obviously non-free terms like ND. I think the
problem with the incrementalist approach is that people may, upon
failing to realize bazaar-like success with NC works, conclude not that
"NC isn't free enough", but instead that "free culture doesn't work".
I don't fear that with ND, because it's obvious to the producer that
they can't expect any kind of collaborative or community advantage.
Terry Hancock (hancock at AnansiSpaceworks.com)
Anansi Spaceworks http://www.AnansiSpaceworks.com
More information about the cc-licenses