Development of Creative Commons licenses

[Glenn Otis Brown <glenn AT creativecommons.org>]

i don't know what the "mainstream" is. i can explain to you our policy 
choice and the thinking behind. and then we can wait and see what 
others say on the point.

you sound as a tad fatalistic here, as if we weren't actually having a 
conversation. but that's what we're doing.

so what do other people think?




On Jan 28, 2004, at 1:58 AM, Evan Prodromou wrote:

> > > > > > "GOB" == Glenn Otis Brown <glenn AT creativecommons.org> writes:
>
>     GOB> They would only be able to put it under by-sa-nc if they
>     GOB> incorporated some content that was by-sa-nc. And once they
>     GOB> incorporate that by-sa-nc content, it would clash with that
>     GOB> copyright owners' wishes. Again, we've got to pick one way or
>     GOB> the other.
>
> So given the choice of violating the wishes of one or the other
> upstream copyright holders, the choice was made to concede to the
> person who's most restrictive and stingy (wants built-in
> restrictions), at the expense of the person who's most generous and
> giving (wants built-in freedoms)? How about just not violating the
> wishes of either?
>
>     Me> Built-in freedoms are more important than ease of mixing.
>
>     GOB> I guess our current position is the opposite. Ease of mixing
>     GOB> is what the whole thing's about. Or not quite the opposite:
>     GOB> note that no one could totally appropriate the derived
>     GOB> content: it would still have be SA'd in some form or other.
>
> It seems to me that the ShareAlike stipulations are specifically _not_
> about mixing. If I didn't care about what further restrictions people
> put on my work, I wouldn't _use_ ShareAlike. The sa provision means,
> "I care about how you license your work, too."
>
> But I guess I'm out of touch with the mainstream in Creative
> Commons. It's pretty important to _me_ that:
>
>        a) I be able to tell creators of derivative works that I want
>           all derivatives to be as free as what I'm giving them. The
>           price for using the fruit of my labor is that they "pay it
>           forward".
>
>        b) I be able to reincorporate corrections, enhancements, and
>           improvements made in downstream versions back into my source
>           work.
>
>     Me> I realize that the stipulation is for remixing works under two
>     Me> different CC sa licenses, but that can be trivially evaded by
>     Me> simply calling the changes an original work under by-sa-nc --
>     Me> perhaps publishing them independently on an orphan Web page
>     Me> somewhere -- and "remixing" them with the by-sa version.
>
>     GOB> But I certainly wouldn't say that the latter is a "trivially"
>     GOB> easy way around the problem.
>
> Well, we can disagree about that. (Actually, I don't see any
> requirement to _publish_ a work -- they don't even have to put up the
> Web page.) Let's just say it's possible and not NP-hard.
>
> ~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