Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

cc-bizcom - Re: [Cc-bizcom] An important initial question for everybody

cc-bizcom AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: A discussion of hybrid open source and proprietary licensing models.

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: Mike Linksvayer <ml AT creativecommons.org>
  • To: cc-bizcom AT lists.ibiblio.org
  • Subject: Re: [Cc-bizcom] An important initial question for everybody
  • Date: Fri, 20 Aug 2004 13:56:33 -0700

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




Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page