Development of Creative Commons licenses

[Thomas Uwe Gruettmueller <sloyment AT gmx.net>]

Hi Glenn,                                       (IANAL TINLA)

Thank you for your answer, and please apologize my delay.

On Sonntag 02 November 2003 04:07, Glenn Otis Brown wrote:
> Thanks for writing. I may be missing your point here -- in
> which case, let me know -- but every Creative Commons license
> that does not include a "share alike" provision is a
> non-copyleft license.

Sorry, my fault. What I had in mind was a non-copyleft license 
that is compatible with CC-SA and other similar licenses (the 
EFF OAL, the Linuxtag Green Open Music License etc.).

> I am going by the general GNU GPL
> definition of copyleft, meaning a license that requires
> licensees to offer derivations back to the public on exactly
> the same terms they were offered.
>
> I suspect you are working from a different definition of
> copyleft: a license that imposes _no_ requirements on
> licensees other than, say, continued notice of the license
> terms. 

Not at all. To impose no requirements at all is just a special 
case of a non-copyleft license, propably the most compatible. It 
is almost identical to a PD work.

The license (draft) below does not require continued notice of 
the license terms. I don't really think it is neccessary. 

> If that's the case, then you're right: we have no
> license like that.  We've considerd one before but thought
> that the demand for it might be too limited.

What I am looking for is a license that is similar in spirit to 
the CC-SA (Allow everything (like PD), as long as these freedoms 
are preserved (Copyleft)). However, I have not found a license 
so far that does this consequently in every aspect:

 1. The license should be applicable on every work, not just
    music (The DSL and CC-SA are applicable on any content).

 2. Authors should not be required to give a warranty. It should
    be posible, but always optional (the EFF OAL and the CC
    licenses enforce it).

 3. The license should grant rights on all actions that are
    forbidden by Copyright or Authors Rights Law -- not just
    copying, distribution, modification, performance, but also
    broadcasting, public playback etc. (I am not aware of any
    license that does this.) 

 4. The license should be a commonly accepted standard license.
    The current attempts (EFF OAL, DSL, GLtOML, CC-SA and several
    others) are incompatible and thus split the commons.

Not only do I have difficulties to find a license for my own 
music, I also cannot recommend a license to other people. So, 
for the above things, I would even consider doing without the 
copyleft, if there was a license that fully met requirements 1, 
2 and 3.

- - - - -
> On Sat, 1 Nov 2003 03:01:02 +0200, "Thomas Uwe Gruettmueller"
> <sloyment AT gmx.net> said:

> > I have noticed that there is not yet a non-copyleft free
> > content license on your website.

It has to be "a non-copyleft free content license, compatible 
with the CC-SA license"

> > THE WORK COMES AS IS, WITHOUT ANY WARRANTY, to the extent
> > permitted by applicable law.

I would also add "If not otherwise stated," in order to enable 
third parties to offer such warranty.

cu,
Thomas }:o{#
-- - http://217.160.174.154/~sloyment/ - --
"Look! They have different music on the dance floor..."