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 22:57:56 +0900

btw, i meant to say, in this paragraph (added text in CAPS):

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 TO LICENSE THE RESULTING WORK UNDER ANYTHING ELSE. Again, we've got to pick one way or the other.


On Jan 26, 2004, at 10:53 PM, Glenn Otis Brown wrote:

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

_______________________________________________
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