Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

cc-licenses - Re: Extra restrictions on derivative works

cc-licenses AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Development of Creative Commons licenses

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: Glenn Otis Brown <glenn AT creativecommons.org>
  • To: Discussion on the Creative Commons license drafts <cc-licenses AT lists.ibiblio.org>
  • Subject: Re: Extra restrictions on derivative works
  • Date: Mon, 26 Jan 2004 16:42:43 +0900

We had to pick a default rule to deal with the instance of two different SA works combined together to form a new work. We chose to have License Elements accumulate. We could have chosen the other way around, and required that the re-mixer license out under the less restrictive of the two licenses, but we had to go one way or the other. Going our way (cumulative), the original, less restricted file will always still be available, so we thought it was the superior of the two approaches.

On Jan 27, 2004, at 9:10 AM, Evan Prodromou wrote:

So, as far as I can tell, the new versions of the licenses have looser
restrictions on sharing-alike. In particular, it seems that's it'll be
OK to add additional restrictions to an sa license.

This seems to be based on the mistaken belief that someone using a
license is only concerned about _restrictions_ and not
_freedoms_. When I license something under the 1.0 sa license, I
guarantee some freedoms to the entire populace. Those freedoms are as
important to me as the restrictions are. No-one can take those away
from the general public -- not even creators of derivative works.

It's possible that I left off other restrictions because I just don't
care, but it's more likely I left them off because I specifically want
all people to be unrestricted with this work and all derivates.

With the 2.0 *-sa-* licenses, creators of derived works _will_ be able
to take those freedoms away. If someone took a work I created and
licensed under a 2.0 sa license, they could create a derivative work
and remove the freedom to use the work commercially. This doesn't seem
to be in the spirit of "sharing alike".

One possible solution is to reify the freedoms that are currently
implied by not having restrictions. In other words, if I license
something as ShareAlike-YesCommercial, that means I explicitly want to
allow commercial use, and creators of derivative works may not remove
that freedom. Similarly, if I license something as
ShareAlike-NoAttribution, meaning that no one has to give attribution,
even for derivative works. That seems less important to me, but
probably good for parallelism.

~ESP

--
Evan Prodromou <evan AT wikitravel.org>
Wikitravel - http://www.wikitravel.org/
The free, complete, up-to-date and reliable world-wide travel guide
_______________________________________________
cc-licenses mailing list
cc-licenses AT lists.ibiblio.org
http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-licenses





Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page