Development of Creative Commons licenses

[Rob Myers <robmyers AT mac.com>]

On 8 Feb 2004, at 19:34, Evan Prodromou wrote:

> > > > > > "RM" == Rob Myers <robmyers AT mac.com> writes:
>
>     RM> I'm disturbed at the removal of 5a.
>
> SO BUT NOW U CAN PUT A CREATVE ON NETHING U WANT AND NO ``COPYWRONG''
> GASTOPPO CAN PUT U IN JAIL!!!1! B-CUZ THEIR IS NO GWARANTEE!!@! TAKE
> THAT MPAA!!!

Given that people seem to believe that the GPL has magical powers to  
make software free, that's a disturbingly realistic scenario.

Here's how the OGL (http://www.opengamingfoundation.org/ogl.html)  
handles it:

"5.Representation of Authority to Contribute: If You are contributing  
original material as Open Game Content, You represent that Your  
Contributions are Your original creation and/or You have sufficient  
rights to grant the rights conveyed by this License."

Not how this creates a compartmentalised risk pyramid, rather than  
passing all risk down as the GPL does. You claim that what you  
distribute is yours to distribute. This is what you claim by publishing  
something anyway! So a CC license shouldn't try to *reduce* the claims  
an individual makes by distributing something!

The indirect problem with the GPL (and removing 5a) is that this adds  
to the "cost of ownership" of Open Content, as end-users must either  
insure against IP infringement lawsuits or be prepared to pay for a  
lawyer:
http://www.groklaw.net/article.php? 
story=20040113030146793&query=indemnification

There *will* be a SCO-type case (desperate alleged infringement)  
against an Open Content producer at some point. There *will* be idiots  
who believe that the CC licenses have magical powers to make  
copyrighted content free. CC must contain this risk with the people who  
contribute the material.

A 5a more like the OGL's 5 would silence the teeny-bloggers and manage  
risk. The baby would stay, the bathwater would be gone. :-)

- Rob.