[cc-licenses] Time limited CC licenses for version 4.0?

Luis Villa luis at tieguy.org
Thu Dec 22 21:51:37 EST 2011


Sounds like what is really needed here is something like GPL v3's
"additional permissions" mechanism, which lets licensors experiment with
additional permissions (like "becomes SA after X years") that can still be
removed when that is necessary for compatibility purposes.
On Dec 22, 2011 5:47 PM, "Mike Linksvayer" <ml at creativecommons.org> wrote:

> On Thu, Dec 22, 2011 at 2:22 PM, Parker Higgins <parkerhiggins at gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > These proposals remind me of an older, now-defunct CC tool called
> Founder's
> > Copyright, which was limited to 14 years with a possible 14 year
> extension.
> > Obviously that is no longer promoted, if it still even exists.
> >
> > Mike, it looks like its earlier URL is now
> > gone: http://www.creativecommons.org/projects/founderscopyright. I've
> found
> > some press releases about it and such. Maybe talking about what didn't
> work
> > with timed licenses would be illustrative in a discussion about
> implementing
> > them now?
>
> I did mention in my initial response to this thread
> http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/cc-licenses/2011-December/006454.html
> ... I encourage people continuing this thread to go back and read
> that.
>
> The only thing to add is that
>
> http://web.archive.org/web/20021222180218/http://creativecommons.org/projects/founderscopyright
> is older than I thought, essentially just as old as the CC license
> suite.
>
>
> Kat Walsh wrote:
> > It would be interesting for some organization that will credibly be
> > around for some time to maintain a site that registers and tracks such
> > commitments.
>
> It could be, and that's basically what CC was doing with "Founder's
> Copyright", in a very heavyweight manner.
>
> But it's not clear to me this would be necessary, at least to
> demonstrate interest, if not 100% legal foolproofery. For years before
> widely used public copyright licenses existed or were widely used,
> people used their own ad hoc statements with some (often verbatim
> copying) or all (approximately or explicitly attempted public domain)
> permissions. Has anyone ever seen something like "FooBlog content by
> Mikey released under BY-NC-ND; Mikey irrevocably commits FooBlog to
> the public domain 14 years after publication"? If so please send a
> reference, I'd love to see! If wasn't a person who uses CC0 from day
> 0, I'd go do this right now.
>
> Would such a thing need to be mentioned in the license at all? If
> there was demand (and no good reason to believe such a facility would
> detract from using fully open licenses in the first place) and a sound
> way to make such a promise, a license chooser could just ask in how
> many years one wants their work to be dedicated to the public domain
> (yes I know a few people would prefer copyleft, but I doubt they're in
> the audience of not being fully open from day 0), and provide an
> appropriate statement.
>
> I do realize a key aspect of Gregor's proposal is that expiry be built
> in (I'd also be curious to look back at the details of Greg London's
> past proposals; quick search didn't turn up). Maybe such should've
> been built into CC licenses from the beginning, but I'm less sure
> about the case for adding it now without a clear demonstration of
> demand and theory as to why it would be a net benefit. I'd love to be
> convinced (hopefully an indicator that others would be too).
>
> As I said in my first response, complexity can be merited, and I'm
> interested in a couple things that depending on how (and if)
> implemented, could add complexity (around ShareAlike scope and
> compatibility with other copyleft licenses). Though I find them
> exciting, I admit the proto-proposals are at best controversial. But,
> highly informed people have regularly asked for them over the years,
> and not just because they sound like cool ideas, but because those
> people want to use licenses with those features, and there's been
> analogous progress in the free software world. I haven't heard any
> such demand for licenses with expiry-to-more-freedom, and zero
> coherent interest in Founder's Copyright and abandonment and no
> copying of the Ghostscript GPL-after-next-release practice are kinda
> negative indicators of interest.
>
> Mike
> _______________________________________________
> List info and archives at
> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-licenses
> Unsubscribe at http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/options/cc-licenses
>
> In consideration of people subscribed to this list to participate
> in the CC licenses http://wiki.creativecommons.org/4.0 development
> process, please direct unrelated discussions to the cc-community list
> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-community
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/cc-licenses/attachments/20111222/51ca197f/attachment-0001.html 


More information about the cc-licenses mailing list