[cc-licenses] CC 4.0 - Libre Puro

Kim Tucker kctucker at gmail.com
Mon Dec 12 19:38:34 EST 2011


Thanks Mike as always for your well considered responses. I am not
sure time will allow me to do equal justice in my responses here or
elsewhere as you have requested. For now a few comments for this list:

> It is highly unlikely we'd add a new license to the suite (or re-add an
> old one, as you suggested on the wiki).

Unlikely, but I hope not impossible.

ShareAlike 1.0 was a mustard seed which was hardly given a chance to germinate.

In an ideal world (imo) something like ShareAlike 4.0 should be the
default license on the Internet: people will find, copy and share
things (in a certain spirit) irrespective of other licenses.
Attribution will be done when applicable (e.g. for scientific
articles). Imposing restrictions must be done consciously.

> specific issues I'd love to have your contributions to:
>
> - BY-SA compatibility with other copyleft licenses.
>  http://wiki.creativecommons.org/4.0/ShareAlike

In BY-SA: "Share Alike — If you alter, transform, or build upon this
work, you may distribute the resulting work only under the same or
similar license to this one."

This wording (on the deed) is fine: attribution and freedoms retained
in derived works.

Works derived from Libre Puro resources may be distributed under
CC-BY-SA "or similar license"s [which retain the essential freedoms].

> - Attribution. One doesn't have to require giving credit when releasing
>  work under a BY* license, but perhaps there's something 4.0
> could do to make that more clear.

The point is users have to check - a small but significant barrier in
some sectors of our free culture. Libre Puro and ShareAlike 4.0 free
up those sections of our culture which do not require attribution
(e.g. kids making creative mixes to share with their friends, friends
sharing insights from some source or other, ...).

A new mustard seed ShareAlike 4.0 (or debugged Libre Puro) could spawn
new projects which may flourish - or, its existence may inspire its
use in society (not as part of any specific projects). CC0 - permits
enclosure (a process which is increasingly being automated!!).

All I have time for ... probably until next year.

Have a good one :-)

Kim

----------------------

On 11 December 2011 02:53, Mike Linksvayer <ml at creativecommons.org> wrote:
> On Sat, Dec 10, 2011 at 4:08 PM, Kim Tucker <kctucker at gmail.com> wrote:
>> Is there room to consider formalisation of something as pro-freedom as this?
>>
>> http://wikieducator.org/Libre_Puro_License
>
> It is highly unlikely we'd add a new license to the suite (or re-add an
> old one, as you suggested on the wiki). Unless an addition would very
> clearly and substantially expand and increase the effectiveness of the
> commons (eg lots of people not satisfied by existing options would start
> using it -- note the lack of use of plain SA that in part led to not
> versioning it past 1.0 is evidence against this, and/or projects that
> were using an existing option would move to it and become much more
> effective as a result) the downsides of incompatibility and increased
> surface area for people to understand say to not expand (indeed, many
> people think CC still has too many licenses; note I'm cognizant that
> too many and some-nonfree are separate issues).
>
> I'm sympathetic to the ideals expressed in Libre Puro, and encourage
> you to think about and clearly articulate how those might be applied to
> licenses in the current CC suite, presumably mainly BY-SA. Here are some
> specific issues I'd love to have your contributions to:
>
> - BY-SA compatibility with other copyleft licenses.
>  http://wiki.creativecommons.org/4.0/ShareAlike
> - TPM clause. This is in all of the licenses and reflects a subset of
>  your desire for free formats. It is in particular relevant to BY and
>  BY-SA and your interests there because its particulars probably impact
>  the potential for compatibility with other free licenses.
>  http://wiki.creativecommons.org/4.0/Technical_protection_measures
> - Attribution. One doesn't have to require giving credit when releasing
>  work under a BY* license, but perhaps there's something 4.0 could do
>  to make that more clear.
>  http://wiki.creativecommons.org/4.0/Attribution_and_marking
>
> I'll make a couple other comments on
> http://wiki.creativecommons.org/Talk:4.0/ShareAlike
>
> Mike
> _______________________________________________
> cc-licenses mailing list
> cc-licenses at lists.ibiblio.org
> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-licenses


More information about the cc-licenses mailing list