Development of Creative Commons licenses

[Mike Linksvayer <ml AT creativecommons.org>]

Rob Myers wrote:
> 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.

They _do_ need a CC license.  The orignal CC licenses all allow for 
unlimited (noncommercial-only in some cases, P2P allowed in all cases) 
distribution and format shifting.  That's far greater rights than the 
statement you cite above, and far, far greater than standard all rights 
reserved.

> > 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.

ND and NC licenses do not qualify as free.  They are gratis.  For 
non-software I'd much prefer people to choose non-free but non-all 
rights reserved option than 
all-rights-reserved-must-have-DRM-we-will-sue-you.  The current ecology 
for software and other media are totally different.

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