A discussion of hybrid open source and proprietary licensing models.

[Mike Linksvayer <ml AT creativecommons.org>]

Rob Myers wrote:
> 1. The GPL and BSD already exist. Reproducing them under a different 
> name doesn't seem useful.
> 2. A clean, parameterised format is what CC's "Human readable" pages and 
> machine-readable metadata provide.

Yeah, but different from a parameterised license.

> 3. It might therefore be good to add BSD alongside the existing GPL 
> entry in CC. I didn't realise LGPL was in there already, cool.
> 4. This would have all the advantages of allowing paramaterised choice 
> and providing clear explanation without the disadvantage of re-inventing 
> the wheel.

I suspect we could do that, but it isn't a priority.  If you have an 
interest in seeing it happen you might take a stab at CC-style metadata 
and explanation for BSD and post to cc-community.  I can't promise we'd 
use it, but you never know.

> I posted on cc-community (I think) about the "NC Fallacy": the idea that 
> NC has more anti-capitalist (or whatever) effect than SA is naive. NC 
> means you as a producer or user pay to distribute and use the content. 
> SA means that you can lever proprietary content into the commons.

I didn't comment on that post, but I suspect many people using NC for 
"content" do so because they want to retain exclusive rights to sell the 
content, not because they hate commerce.

--
  Mike Linksvayer
  http://creativecommons.org/learn/aboutus/people#21