Development of Creative Commons licenses

[Rob Myers <robmyers AT mac.com>]

On 9 Feb 2004, at 23:31, Evan Prodromou wrote:

> 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?).

IMVVVHO I would re-iterate the threefold nature of Creative Common's 
project. There's a difference between making a robust license then 
selling it to people and making a license that gives a vocal minority 
what they think they want so they don't feel they have to do anything 
to adopt it.

> 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 put my life's work under a CC license. Forgive me if I don't see a 
"don't blame me, I'm just plagiarising" clause as adding value to my 
work.

> 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.

Hear, hear. Is "some rights reserved" a serious statement or just this 
season's fashion accessory?

- Rob.