[cc-licenses] New Generic and ports

drew Roberts zotz at 100jamz.com
Tue Oct 10 21:26:47 EDT 2006


On Tuesday 10 October 2006 06:34 pm, Terry Hancock wrote:
> 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? :-)

Oh, I don't know Terry. ~;-) [btw, I prefer drew to Drew]

Now, if I heard back from CC that they though my proposal for a Free CC logo 
was brilliant and was going to be implemented post haste, that would get me 
excited.

I am already excited about NaNoWriMo being so close though. Anyone want to 
join me and try to write a 50,000 word novel in 30 days and put it under a 
BY-SA license?

http://www.nanowrimo.org/modules/newbb/viewtopic.php?topic_id=4146&forum=171&post_id=61131#forumpost61131

>
> 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.

Well, what I see happening out there in the wild is that CC is becomming 
equated with BY-NC. Is that what they CC really wants? Does CC think that 
BY-NC should be the preferred license for the commons? Etc.
>
> 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
> comments.

Except for the last bit, which, granted, is not insignificant, how is this 
different from an ARR work? Ideas can still be spread by an ARR work.

Just to be clear again, I am not saying that CC-ND is a terrible license, I 
just think it has no real contribution to make to a "creative commons"... I 
am still not sure I am expressing this in the best way.
>
> 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 agree that this is a real danger.
>
> 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.
>
> Cheers,
> Terry

all the best,

drew
-- 
(da idea man)
National Novel Writing Month
http://www.nanowrimo.org/index.php
Join me and write a novel in 30 days! Dont delay!



More information about the cc-licenses mailing list