[cc-licenses] Time limited CC licenses for version 4.0 ?
zotz at 100jamz.com
Wed Dec 28 09:34:45 EST 2011
On Tuesday 27 December 2011 00:54:03 Greg London wrote:
> >> Which is where something like an early release license would
> >> *contribute*
> >> to a commons by allowing creators to release the work to CC-BY after
> >> some
> >> number of years.
> > Why the assumption everywhere that someone
> > wanting to put an NC option on their work
> > would would prefer to go to BY rather than
> > BY-SA after X years?
> Because they figure they can make enough money
> in X years to justify the work they put into
> creating it, and they are committing to their
> readers that after X years they will release
> the work to CC-BY.
> Telling your readers that you are licensing
> the work NOW to be CC-NC-something, but also
> committing to them NOW that you will release
> the work to CC-BY after X years have passed,
> is a committment that will get some readers
And doing the exact same thing with CC-BY-SA in place of the example's CC-BY
would not get the attention of those same readers for some reason?
> > of the commons after the donation?
> First of all, if you are refering to CC-NC-ANYTHING as
> being in a "commons", please stop.
This email is a bit confusing as you have no top indicating who you are
replying to. I think it is me due to what I replied to further above but this
bit about referring to any NC work as being in the commons would not be me.
If you think it is what I am doing, please re-read my stuff carefully and see
if perhaps you were mistaken in your first reading. If you think you were not
mistaken, please let me know what I wrote that makes you draw that
conclusion. (Perhaps I "miswrote"?)
I certainly do not consider anything with an NC or an ND to be in any commons
that I call a commons.
> And if you really
> want to argue that CC-NC-ANYTHING is actually *in* a
> commons, then whatever you think you're doing with
> CC licenses, I don't want to support the mangling
> of the language that comes with it. I don't have
> a problem with people selling works All Rights Reserved
> if they want to, but I do have a problem with people
> mangling the term "commons" to convince themselves or
> others that they're doing something they're not.
> Second of all, the point is that the author would
> use this license to put the work under some more
> strict license first, giving them some time to
> exclusively sell the work, but then they commit
> *ahead of time* that they will release the work
> to CC-BY after some number of years, telling their
> readers that they don't need the Life-Plus-70 terms
> to find sufficient incentive to creaet the work
> in the first place.
I get the second point and I think BY-SA will be fine for that as well as BY
or perhaps CC0.
I do think if that road is going to seriously be considered though that
perhaps we need to go deeper. Perhaps when doing so we need to build in
No statutory damages persued against living, breathing, humans. (Perhaps when
dealing with the same. So, no fronting corporations by humans allowed?)
all the best,
More information about the cc-licenses