Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

cc-licenses - Re: Extra restrictions on derivative works

cc-licenses AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Development of Creative Commons licenses

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • 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: Mon, 09 Feb 2004 10:58:47 -0800

Per I. Mathisen wrote:
Offering both CC-SA and CC-BY-SA at the same time while being incompatible
is silly. Too easy to lose the ability to share with another CC project by
'accident'.

FWIW there's a possibility of making attribution non-optional. Few people have chosen a sa, nd, nc, nd-nc or nc-sa license. Enlightened people who can live without legally mandated attribution tend to use the PD declaration.

The 'no-commercial' clause is really bad for community projects. It places
a restriction that is very hard to interpret, and there is no longer any
one copyright holder who can clear up any confusion or give explicit
permissions.

I agree, but I don't know if that's a strong reason to not offer NC (which isn't going to happen anyway). People aren't idiots, and natural sorting occurs. For example, in the music space Opsound.org uses by-sa, while Magnatune.com uses by-nc-sa.

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





Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page