Development of Creative Commons licenses

[Nelson Pavlosky <npavlos1 AT swarthmore.edu>]

I would like to voice my support both for warranties and for derivative 
works having to be at least as open as the original, not at least as 
closed as the original.  This is a bit complicated, but the point is 
that I want my work and derivative works to always remain free under a 
GPL-style license if I decide to license them that way, and this option 
seems to no longer exist with CC 2.0

I am one of the founders of the Swarthmore Coalition for the Digital 
Commons [ http://scdc.sccs.swarthmore.edu ], and we are in the process 
of building a database of Creative Commons licensed work here on campus, 
both by posting original material created by Swarthmore College students 
and by mirroring other large repositories, such as Archive.org.

I like the idea of warranties because I will feel much safer 
distributing and making derivative works from a work that is under a 
warrantied CC license, and I would like to offer a warranty on my works, 
so that other people can remix them and redistribute them without 
copyright concerns.  Anything that reduces the trust placed in 
CC-licensed work is bad in my book.

I strongly dislike the idea of people being able to take my GPL-style 
licensed CC works and making derivative works that are less free.  This 
is the exact reason why I use Linux and not FreeBSD: the GPL ensures 
that any work that is built off of my work will remain available to me 
(and the public).  I thought that the Share-alike license was supposed 
to behave like the GPL, and I am dismayed to find that people can lock 
parts of my work away by reducing the freedoms on derivative works.  I 
understand that there is a tricky line to tread here.  However, I think 
that as long as the "share-alike" provision cannot be stripped away from 
works derived from my "share-alike" works, it is better to allow the 
other restrictions to be stripped away than to let other people heap on 
more restrictions.  If release my work under a simple "share-alike" 
license, I don't want to find derivative works with the "non-commerical" 
attribution added on, because then they can make money off of pieces of 
my work while preventing me from making money off of it.  How is that 
fair?  I release them in that fashion with the understanding that 
anyone, INCLUDING ME, can make money off of them.

###################################
I'm not sure if I understood a few things correctly, so the paragraphs 
below may not make sense, please feel free to correct me... My 
understanding is that if you have a BY-SA work, then second generation 
derivatives must attribute both me and the first generation derivative 
author.  I also have been lead to believe that if you have a SA-NC work, 
then the second generative derivatives must ask me for permission to 
make money as well as the first generation derivative authors.  Is this 
true?  If so, continue reading...

If I release my work under a BY-SA license, I think that it might be OK 
for the second generation of derivative works to not require the 
attribution, because eventually it would get utterly ridiculous if the 
work continues to be attributed forever and ever, until you must attach 
a book of credits to your CD in order to publish it legally.  I think 
that if the attribution clause is becoming too unwieldy, it may be good 
to be able to drop it from the second generation of derivative works.

Similarly, it may be good to allow people to drop the NC provision, 
because if the work is derivified too many times, it will become 
difficult or impossible to track down all of the artists in its lineage 
if you wish to make money off of the work, and we will be left with the 
same unusable mess that we have with current copyright.

#######################################
At any rate, I definitely do not want people to be able to add BY if I 
didn't have it in my SA work, and I don't want people to be able to add 
NC if I didn't have it in my SA work.

~Nelson~



Evan Prodromou wrote:

> > > > > > "ML" == Mike Linksvayer <ml AT creativecommons.org> writes:
> > > > > >            
>
>    ML> Until last week on this list I don't recall ever hearing
>    ML> anyone voice support for in-license warranties.
>
> But there were warranties in the licenses until last week! B-) I might
> also note that the discussion of dropping the warranties happened on a
> variety of blogs, and as far as I know not on this list.
>
> One thing I would love to hear is from the warranty critics. Are they
> planning on using the CC 2.0 licenses, if there are no warranties?
> Supporting or advocating them? Or just carping some more? Do they
> understand what the loss of warranty means for people who actually use
> the licenses? Or are they just patting themselves on the back for a
> flame war well waged?
>
> Sal Randolph is the first person with a real stake in the licenses
> I've seen who's actually come out against the warranties. I thought
> her post was very interesting, but I disagree with her.
>
> Personally, I find some of the arguments against warranties really
> demeaning to the artists, writers, musicians and filmmakers and other
> creatives who put their work under CC licenses. The general gist is
> that anyone who releases their work under a CC license is a clueless
> amateur, and the work they release is worth nothing (after all, if it
> was worth something, why would they give it away?).
>
> Most work I've seen and heard under CC licenses has been high-quality
> and professional grade. I don't think there's any justification in
> assuming that creators of CC-licensed work are making worthless crap
> that licensees should use at their own peril. Most people who've put
> the thought into applying a CC license have the knowledge and
> wherewithal to clear the rights on what they're distributing.
>
> I also think that there's a real ass-backwards idea of the
> relationship between licensor and licensee. The idea being that the
> licensor gets no benefit out of licensees redistributing work, so
> licensees should always get the rotten end of the stick. In point of
> fact, licensors get _great_ benefit out of publicity, distribution,
> and re-publication. Not only that, but _every_ licensor gets benefits
> when quality work is re-distributed and re-published. We all benefit
> from CC's good reputation.
>
> Making CC licenses the Gawrsh-I-dunno-how-this-works-whatever license
> will, conversely, _hurt_ all creatives using the CC license. Muddying
> the waters about whether CC-licensed work is copyright clean means
> _everybody_'s work becomes less valuable, and _everybody_ loses those
> advantages of free redistribution and republication.
>
> I _want_ people to republish my work. I want people to use it, and
> spread it around, because I believe it's good information and it helps
> people. I _don't_ want to tell licensees that this may or may not be
> my work, and it may or may not be illegal to redistribute it. That's
> not the message I want to send. That's not the message that's going to
> get my work redistributed.
>
> I also found some of the arguments against warranties pretty
> ridiculous. "What if I link to an image from another site I don't have
> rights to? But there's a 'some rights reserved' image at the bottom of
> the page? What then?" This is not a license issue; this is a page
> layout issue. It's a blogging software issue. It's a wording issue
> ("Unless otherwise specified, all text and images..."). Some blogger's
> inability to clearly specify what on their page they can and can't
> license is not good enough cause to denigrate the worth of all the
> great CC content out there.
>
> I've read the Lenz Blog. It's a darn fine blog. But it's not good
> enough that we should tarnish the reputation of all CC licensors just
> to get a "Some Rights Reserved" image on its pages.
>
>    Me> I realize my continual harping on this issue is probably pretty
>    Me> annoying. I apologize for that.
>
>    ML> Not at all.  It would've been nice if you harped when others
>    ML> were harping on the opposite, but your feedback is valuable in
>    ML> any case.
>
> Thanks. I don't feel so bad, now.
>
> ~ESP
>
>