Development of Creative Commons licenses

["Mail Delivery System" <MAILER-DAEMON AT fastmail.fm>]

This is the Postfix program at host fastmail.fm.

I'm sorry to have to inform you that the message returned
below could not be delivered to one or more destinations.

For further assistance, please send mail to <postmaster>

If you do so, please include this problem report. You can
delete your own text from the message returned below.

      The Postfix program

<disneylogic AT fastmail.fm>: data format error. Command output: disneylogic: 
Mailbox does not exist
Reporting-MTA: dns; fastmail.fm
Arrival-Date: Sat,  7 Feb 2004  2:32 PM

Final-Recipient: rfc822; disneylogic AT fastmail.fm
Action: failed
Status: 5.0.0
Diagnostic-Code: X-Postfix;
	data format error. Command output: disneylogic: Mailbox does
	not exist

--- Begin Message ---

• From: cc-licenses-request AT lists.ibiblio.org
• To: cc-licenses AT lists.ibiblio.org
• Subject: cc-licenses Digest, Vol 11, Issue 6
• Date: Sat, 7 Feb 2004 00:32:41 -0500 (EST)

Send cc-licenses mailing list submissions to
cc-licenses AT lists.ibiblio.org

To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-licenses
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
cc-licenses-request AT lists.ibiblio.org

You can reach the person managing the list at
cc-licenses-owner AT lists.ibiblio.org

When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of cc-licenses digest..."
Today's Topics:

1. Extra restrictions on derivative works (Luke Stodola)
2. Re: Extra restrictions on derivative works (Evan Prodromou)
3. Re: Extra restrictions on derivative works (email AT greglondon.com)
4. Re: Extra restrictions on derivative works (email AT greglondon.com)
5. Re: Extra restrictions on derivative works (Mike Linksvayer)
6. Re: Extra restrictions on derivative works (Wouter Vanden Hove)
7. Re: Extra restrictions on derivative works (email AT greglondon.com)

--- Begin Message ---

• From: Luke Stodola <lbs6380 AT cs.rit.edu>
• To: cc-licenses AT lists.ibiblio.org
• Subject: Extra restrictions on derivative works
• Date: Fri, 06 Feb 2004 13:26:44 -0500

If I release something under the CC-BY-SA license, I would not want
someone else to take it, modify it slightly, and release the result with
the added restriction of NonCommercial or NoDeriv. This is akin to
releasing my code under the GPL so that some company can't take it and
sell it under a more restrictive license. If I didn't care about
derivative works, I'd use the CC-BY license, just like I might use the
BSD license for software.

Using the CC-BY-SA is my decision. I believe that this is a good
license to standardize on, and by putting my work under it, I am showing
my support for it. I feel that it is important that artists can
commercially distribute their work -- even if it is based on someone
else's work. Artists do, after all, have to support themselves
somehow. By adding the Non-commercial use only clause to a piece of
work, you're preventing its use by a large segment of the population.

I also dislike the No derivative works clause. I feel everybody,
directly or indirectly, builds on other works, and rather than trying to
prevent it, we should encourage it.

On these two points I have a personal stance on. I care about them.
Therefore, I would like my viewpoints to be passed along with the work.
I don't think that the CC-BY-SA should allow derivative works under
CC-BY-NC-SA.

Another issue in licenses is access to the transparent copy, loosely
equivalent to the source code for the free software program. While
there are certainly important reasons for requiring this, I personally
feel that it is not essential. (For one, there is not yet standardized
formats for everything that would make this easy. Once Audacity,
Rezound, Ardour, and any non-free audio software all standardize on some
interchange format that actually makes the "transparent copy" useful,
this may become more important.) However, I agree that some people may
want to _require_ that the source is available. The GFDL does this.
For a project like Wikipedia or a software manual, this provision
actually makes a lot of sense. I would want my works to be accessible
to e.g. Wikipedia. So my feeling is that others may add this
restriction to a derivative work, or they may not.

So for each requirement in a license (Attribution, Derivative works
allowed, Commercial use allowed, Source version available) someone can
have one of three opinions: Required, Don't Care, Prohibited.

For example: I would like to require attribution, require derivative
works to be allowed, and require commercial use to be allowed, but I
don't care about having the source version available; I don't require
it, but someone else who builds on my work could.

The CC-BY-SA 1.0 seems to require attribution, require derivative works
to be allowed, require commercial use to be allowed, and prohibit
requiring the source to be available. Hence the incompatibility with
the GFDL, which adds this restriction.

The CC-BY-SA 2.0 Draft seems to require attribution, _allow_ derivative
works to be allowed, allow _others_ to _prohibit_ commercial use, and
prohibit requiring the source to be available. This is still
incompatibility with the GFDL, but it now allows a third party to
prevent another person from using a work based in whole or in part on my
work, even though I explicitly stated those freedoms. This is not
appropriate for the ShareAlike license. If I'm fine with someone else
restricting the use of a work (based in whole or in part on mine...) I
would use the CC-BY license.

Some restrictions pretty clearly fall into the category of "Don't
Care". If an author chooses CC-SA, I would doubt he would have a
problem with me requiring attribution on a work based on his, though I
would still be obliged to ask permission. (Which I did, the one time I
came across a CC-SA work. http://rtnl.org.uk/music/ if your curious.)
So maybe in the license selection form, if the ShareAlike option was
activated, it would allow the user to select what the requirements were
for derivative works. I can do a mock-up if anyone doesn't get what I
mean. I don't want to make the licensing process any more complicated
than it is, but I feel that the proposed 2.0 drafts still need work
before their ready to be used.

Comments?

Luke Stodola
dxdt.org/audio/




--- End Message ---

--- Begin Message ---

• From: Evan Prodromou <evan AT wikitravel.org>
• To: Discussion on the Creative Commons license drafts <cc-licenses AT lists.ibiblio.org>
• Subject: Re: Extra restrictions on derivative works
• Date: Fri, 06 Feb 2004 14:56:53 -0500

I wonder if it would be possible to satisfy both camps by perhaps
splitting the ShareAlike license stipulation into two. ShareAlike
could be like 2.0 draft ShareAlike -- where you can add extra
stipulations. ShareExact would be like 1.0 ShareAlike -- no extra
stipulations, but new versions or iCommons with the same stipulations
allowed.

~ESP

--
Evan Prodromou <evan AT wikitravel.org>
Wikitravel - http://www.wikitravel.org/
The free, complete, up-to-date and reliable world-wide travel guide


--- End Message ---

--- Begin Message ---

• From: email AT greglondon.com
• To: cc-licenses AT lists.ibiblio.org
• Cc: cc-licenses AT lists.ibiblio.org
• Subject: Re: Extra restrictions on derivative works
• Date: Fri, 06 Feb 2004 12:20:51 -0800 (PST)

your draft 2 sharealike license is no different than
the CC-Public Domain license. If derived works can
have further restrictions added to it, then the original
work is effectively CC-PublicDomain.

Your original work would remain CC-PD, but I could create
a derived work and license it All Rights Reserved.

Copyleft (Sharealike) only makes sense if the old license has to be
applied to the new work.

what 'camp' are you trying to satisfy?

I just released a perl programming manual
(120 pages, several months of work)
under CC-BY-SA, and I would change the
license if you changed the ShareAlike
license to what you are proposing.
or force it to be version 1.0 only.

Greg

p.s. you can get the manual at
www.greglondon.com
just follow the links



On Fri, 06 Feb 2004 14:56:53 -0500, Evan Prodromou wrote:
> I wonder if it would be possible to satisfy both camps by perhaps
> splitting the ShareAlike license stipulation into two. ShareAlike
> could be like 2.0 draft ShareAlike -- where you can add extra
> stipulations. ShareExact would be like 1.0 ShareAlike -- no extra
> stipulations, but new versions or iCommons with the same stipulations
> allowed.


--- End Message ---

--- Begin Message ---

• From: email AT greglondon.com
• To: cc-licenses AT lists.ibiblio.org
• Cc: cc-licenses AT lists.ibiblio.org
• Subject: Re: Extra restrictions on derivative works
• Date: Fri, 06 Feb 2004 12:20:51 -0800 (PST)

your draft 2 sharealike license is no different than
the CC-Public Domain license. If derived works can
have further restrictions added to it, then the original
work is effectively CC-PublicDomain.

Your original work would remain CC-PD, but I could create
a derived work and license it All Rights Reserved.

Copyleft (Sharealike) only makes sense if the old license has to be
applied to the new work.

what 'camp' are you trying to satisfy?

I just released a perl programming manual
(120 pages, several months of work)
under CC-BY-SA, and I would change the
license if you changed the ShareAlike
license to what you are proposing.
or force it to be version 1.0 only.

Greg

p.s. you can get the manual at
www.greglondon.com
just follow the links



On Fri, 06 Feb 2004 14:56:53 -0500, Evan Prodromou wrote:
> I wonder if it would be possible to satisfy both camps by perhaps
> splitting the ShareAlike license stipulation into two. ShareAlike
> could be like 2.0 draft ShareAlike -- where you can add extra
> stipulations. ShareExact would be like 1.0 ShareAlike -- no extra
> stipulations, but new versions or iCommons with the same stipulations
> allowed.


--- End Message ---

--- Begin Message ---

• From: Mike Linksvayer <ml 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: Fri, 06 Feb 2004 12:54:59 -0800

email AT greglondon.com wrote:

your draft 2 sharealike license is no different than
the CC-Public Domain license. If derived works can
have further restrictions added to it, then the original
work is effectively CC-PublicDomain.

False. You can do anything with PD work. My understanding of the proposed draft is that a offering a 2.0 SA license is the same as offering a work under multiple 1.0 SA licenses, e.g., 2.0 BY-SA is roughly equivalent to offering licensors a choice of 1.0 BY-SA or 1.0 BY-SA-NC.

what 'camp' are you trying to satisfy?

I think the goal in offering a more flexible SA is to increase the pool from which a derived work can pull from. We aren't naively pursuing only that goal, or we'd offer nothing but a PD dedication. _Personally_ I'm more comfortable with a SA that that preserves freedoms rather than restrictions, but my sympathies tend towards the libre software world, so that's expected. I suspect most creatives don't harbor such sympathies, and as such it may be worth offering a SA with a slightly different nature. IMHO, FWIW, IANAL, etc.

I just released a perl programming manual (120 pages, several months of work)
under CC-BY-SA, and I would change the license if you changed the ShareAlike license to what you are proposing.
or force it to be version 1.0 only.

I like how you introduce Data::Dumper immediately after hello world. :-)

--
Mike Linksvayer
http://creativecommons.org/learn/aboutus/people#21


--- End Message ---

--- Begin Message ---

• From: Wouter Vanden Hove <wouter.vanden.hove AT pandora.be>
• To: Discussion on the Creative Commons license drafts <cc-licenses AT lists.ibiblio.org>
• Subject: Re: Extra restrictions on derivative works
• Date: Fri, 06 Feb 2004 21:59:55 +0000

Op vr 06-02-2004, om 20:20 schreef email AT greglondon.com:

> Copyleft (Sharealike) only makes sense if the old license has to be
> applied to the new work.

Yes,
Imagine the GPL had a clause like the new SA, that could forbid
commercial use or derived works.

Apply that to IBM, HP, Suse, Lindows making use of GNU/Linux.
What do you think would happen.
So what's the whole point of copyleft then?

There is a problem with license compatibility
like eg. Wikipedia that uses FDL and Wikitravel that use BY-SA,


I don't know *any* project that is complaining about license
incompatibility between BY-SA and BY-SA-NC.

And I do have some knowlegde about what open content projects are out
hter:
http://www.opencursus.be/modules.php?op=modload&name=Web_Links&file=index&l_op=viewlink&cid=8

I was expecting that CC would try to resolve the conflict between their
own strong copyleft license and various other strong copyleft licenses
like the Open Publication License (with no options), FDL (with no
invariant sections), Design Science License, Free Art License, ...

So I wasn't expecting this.
If you want to merge SA and NC-SA content, you have a strong incentive
to make the NC drop, and make the work more *open*.
With the new clause, everybody can make an open work more *closed*.
I think this is 100% the opposite of the the whole Creative Commons
Project wants to achieve.


The dynamics of strong copylefting is extraordinaire.
A clause like this just blows the whole thing up.


BY-SA=!BY-PD
Wouter Vanden Hove
www.opencursus.org
www.vrijschrift.org
www.open-education.org







> I just released a perl programming manual
> (120 pages, several months of work)
> under CC-BY-SA, and I would change the
> license if you changed the ShareAlike
> license to what you are proposing.
> or force it to be version 1.0 only.




>
> Greg
>
> p.s. you can get the manual at
> www.greglondon.com
> just follow the links
>
>
>
> On Fri, 06 Feb 2004 14:56:53 -0500, Evan Prodromou wrote:
> > I wonder if it would be possible to satisfy both camps by perhaps
> > splitting the ShareAlike license stipulation into two. ShareAlike
> > could be like 2.0 draft ShareAlike -- where you can add extra
> > stipulations. ShareExact would be like 1.0 ShareAlike -- no extra
> > stipulations, but new versions or iCommons with the same stipulations
> > allowed.
> _______________________________________________
> cc-licenses mailing list
> cc-licenses AT lists.ibiblio.org
> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-licenses
>
>

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Dit berichtdeel is digitaal ondertekend

--- End Message ---

--- Begin Message ---

• From: email AT greglondon.com
• To: cc-licenses AT lists.ibiblio.org
• Subject: Re: Extra restrictions on derivative works
• Date: Fri, 06 Feb 2004 21:32:28 -0800 (PST)

On Fri, 06 Feb 2004 12:54:59 -0800, Mike Linksvayer wrote:
> I think the goal in offering a more flexible SA is to increase the pool
> from which a derived work can pull from. We aren't naively pursuing
> only that goal, or we'd offer nothing but a PD dedication. _Personally_
> I'm more comfortable with a SA that that preserves freedoms rather than
> restrictions, but my sympathies tend towards the libre software world,
> so that's expected. I suspect most creatives don't harbor such
> sympathies, and as such it may be worth offering a SA with a slightly
> different nature. IMHO, FWIW, IANAL, etc.

So, if I license my work CC-SA, you're telling me that people
can take my work, derive it, and tack on any two-letter
acronym they want onto the license, turning it into
CC-SA-NC or CC-SA-BY or CC-SA-ND ????

Is this what you're saying?

If I wanted my work to be non-commercial, I would have put the
two extra initials on myself.

> offering a more flexible SA is to increase the pool
> from which a derived work can pull from.

The problem you're running into is license incompatibility.
NC works can only play with other NC works.
That's just the way it goes. But that's how the author
wanted it. Or they wouldn't have contributed their work
with a CC license in the first place.

I've been around the open source software for a while,
and license incompatibility is a problem there.
GNU-GPL can only play with other GNU-GPL works.
But that's the way Richard Stallman wanted it,
and the people who thought they could bring
Microsoft to its knees thought so too. It was
a strong belief a couple years ago that Linux
would eventually kill the evil microsoft, and
GNU-GPL would lock the greedy Bill Gates out of
using the code.

But I work with Perl a lot, and the Perl artistic
license doesn't fly with GNU-GPL. Sometimes people
try to work around incompatible licenses by dual
licensing, but that has problems too.

Creative Commons offers a multitude of licenses.
Bascially mix and match the two-letter acronyms.
And several combinations are incompatible with
each other.

So the license you're proposing is effectively
using the dual-license approach to solve what
some perceive to be a problem of
incompatibility. SA can mean SA or SA-NC.

But some people won't contribute their works
if your force them to use a license they dont want.
The people who wanted to slay Microsoft wouldn't
have contributed their code under the Perl artistic
license because it wasn't copyleft. the perl artistic
license is essentially CC-PD.

GNU-GPL allows commercial use, but derived works
must be GNU-GPL'ed as well. and a court ruling
decided that when you compile code together, you
are making one gigantic derived work, so ALL the
source code had to be GNU-GPL if ANY of the code was
GNU-GPL'ed.

I was actually surprised that Creative Commons had
a No-Commercial use option on their license selection.
It's an idea that was abandoned in most software
open-source licenses some time ago. GNU-GPL, as restrictive
as it is, allows commercial derivatives. And RedHat is
a company that has made money off of Linux and even
contributed to the effort. Red Hat Packages (RPM's) are
software bundles that allow for a consistent interface
to ANY software installation in a Linux system, and it
was contributed by the Red Hat company.

If Creative Commons wanted to do ANYTHING that would
help its cause, it should probably seriously consider
removing Non-Commercial as an option on its licensing
and greatly reduce the license incompatibilities among
its license combinations.

A re-education might be needed, for contributers, and
even for Creative Commons people themselves. Non-Commercial
is Non-Sense. As long as any derived works remain 'public'
through some Copyleft or Sharealike license, the community
gains.

This might be a brutal analysis, but there is only one
type of person who contributes a work under a Non-Commercial
license, and that is someone who wants free distribution,
word of mouth, derived works to attribute their names to
get someone to notice them and then PAY them for their work.

These kinds of people will not use your share alike license
if it allows commercial use, they'll just pick a different
license. So changing the license won't help your incompatibility
problem. You will always have a compatibility problem with
their works, because they want it that way.

Well, there is a second type of person, and that is someone
who mistakenly believes that anything COMMERCIAL is in
some way EVIL. these people simply need to be educated
beyond their simple Robin Hood fairy tales where all
rich people got that way by stealing from the poor.

The RedHat example is a good place to start.

GNU-GPL, as strict and rigid as it is, was almost required
for what it was trying to accomplish, namely a massive body
of work that required a decade of work, countless man hours
of work, and millions of lines of code. And it allows commercial
use. The one thing it did was add Copyleft to its license.

If Creative Commons wants to cultivate a rich body of works
that people can pool from, it should seriously consider
reducing the options to two licenses:

CC-BY-SA : attribution sharealike
CC-BY-ND-NC : noderiviative noncommercial

The BY-ND-NC is for the people who are looking to get paid
for their work, and want free distribution to get the
word out.

The BY-SA is for people who want to contribute to the pool
of works that other people can use. Commercial use is
allowed but since it is sharealike, any derived works
whether commercial or education or whatever is still
usable by the public pool.

The "education" mailing list had some discussion going on about
a license limiting the work to 'educational' purposes only,
or something like that, which is just silly, and another
option that will create more incompatibilities among licenses.

People are either willing to contribute their works to a
pool that other people can use freely or they're not.
If they are, BY-SA will expand the pool. If they are not,
use the BY-NC-ND license.

GNU-GPL created a massive "pool" of code that works together.
people contributed to it because they wanted to, and some
contributed to it because they could make money off of it
in other ways (selling books, installation CD's, selling support).
ANd the license basically locks all the code into the same
license.

A massive pool of music and movies and text that anyone can
use and modify will only be achievable via BY-SA. All other
options simply splinter the pool into incompatible little
puddles.

Anyone who argues otherwise needs to take a serious look
at the hard lessons learned by open-source software,
and the success of GNU-GPL. They also need to take a
serious look at their personal motivations and prejudices
that makes them want to exclude certain groups from the
"public" pool. (commercial, non-educational, etc)

Oh, you could offer CC-PD as well. for people who are
truly altruistic and wish to give their works to the
world with no strings attached.

sorry for the rant.
Greg
I am not a laywer,
this is not legal advice,
do not operate heavy machinery while reading this post.


--- End Message ---

_______________________________________________
cc-licenses mailing list
cc-licenses AT lists.ibiblio.org
http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-licenses

--- End Message ---