Development of Creative Commons licenses

[Rob Myers <robmyers AT mac.com>]

On 8 Feb 2004, at 17:28, Luke Stodola wrote:

> I very much agree with adulau, Per, and "greglondon".  There are two
> distinct groups which the CC licenses cater to.  One are the artists 
> who
> want to use a restrictive license for some of their work to get enough
> publicity to get people to buy the rest of their work under an even 
> more
> restrictive license.  As JBN said:

These people don't need a CC license. They need a disclaimer saying 
"download one copy for personal use, don't distribute" and a plug for 
their work in some way included in the download.

> The other side is the people who want to build a common pool of 
> material,
> for all to use.

I looked at the business model proposed for Open Source software, 
essentially a consultancy/convenience packaging approach. Artists and 
authors can add enough value to make it worth buying products from them 
if they use an Open Content license. And they can get a lot of value in 
return.
People will pay for glossy covers, signatures, bonus tracks, 
large-scale prints, covers for LoTR downloads, print-on-demand of 
novels, commisions, etc. This is all about adding and sharing value. It 
can work for Software, it can work for Content.

> The NoDerivs clause also falls strongly into the first category.  If
> you are putting your work in that central pool, you are granting others
> the right to be inspired by them, adapt them, translate them, etc.  If
> you simply want others to hear your work and then buy your CD, fine,
> but don't mistake that for free or open content.

Yes. The bandwagon can pay for itself.

- Rob.