cc-licenses AT lists.ibiblio.org
Subject: Development of Creative Commons licenses
List archive
- 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 22:53:38 +0900
Here's a more concrete situation: a score of collaborators on
Wikitravel put together a fine guide to Boston, under the by-sa 2.0. A
commercial travel publisher creates a guide to New England, and
include our Boston guide. However, they release it under by-sa-nc
2.0.
They would only be able to put it under by-sa-nc if they incorporated some content that was by-sa-nc. And once they incorporate that by-sa-nc content, it would clash with that copyright owners' wishes. Again, we've got to pick one way or the other.
Built-in freedoms are more important than ease
of mixing.
I guess our current position is the opposite. Ease of mixing is what the whole thing's about. Or not quite the opposite: note that no one could totally appropriate the derived content: it would still have be SA'd in some form or other.
I'd be interested to hear what other people's priorities are regarding built-in freedoms versus ease of mixing.
I'm willing to consider these alternatives:
(1)
I think there either needs to be a way to say, "No, you can't take
away freedoms we tried to build into our license", or mixing licenses
should be disallowed.
(2)
I realize that the stipulation is for remixing works under two
different CC sa licenses, but that can be trivially evaded by simply
calling the changes an original work under by-sa-nc -- perhaps
publishing them independently on an orphan Web page somewhere -- and
"remixing" them with the by-sa version.
But I certainly wouldn't say that the latter is a "trivially" easy way around the problem. And again, I'd be curious to hear what other people think on the question of ease-of-mix versus enforcing freedoms.
This means that:
a) No other travel guide publisher will be able to use their
changes
b) Wikitravel will be unable to incorporate their changes, unless
we relicense our work under by-sa-nc, too.
I realize that the stipulation is for remixing works under two
different CC sa licenses, but that can be trivially evaded by simply
calling the changes an original work under by-sa-nc -- perhaps
publishing them independently on an orphan Web page somewhere -- and
"remixing" them with the by-sa version.
Our original intention in using by-sa was to make the guides and all
derivatives free for _everyone_. Yet the new licenses would allow
people to take away the freedoms they're enjoying from other
people. That's broken.
~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
-
Extra restrictions on derivative works,
Evan Prodromou, 01/26/2004
-
Re: Extra restrictions on derivative works,
Glenn Otis Brown, 01/26/2004
-
Re: Extra restrictions on derivative works,
Evan Prodromou, 01/26/2004
-
Re: Extra restrictions on derivative works,
Glenn Otis Brown, 01/27/2004
- Re: Extra restrictions on derivative works, Glenn Otis Brown, 01/27/2004
-
Re: Extra restrictions on derivative works,
Evan Prodromou, 01/27/2004
- Re: Extra restrictions on derivative works, Glenn Otis Brown, 01/27/2004
- Re: Extra restrictions on derivative works, Per I. Mathisen, 01/28/2004
-
Re: Extra restrictions on derivative works,
Glenn Otis Brown, 01/27/2004
-
Re: Extra restrictions on derivative works,
Evan Prodromou, 01/26/2004
- <Possible follow-up(s)>
- Extra restrictions on derivative works, Luke Stodola, 01/30/2004
-
Re: Extra restrictions on derivative works,
Glenn Otis Brown, 01/26/2004
Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.