Development of Creative Commons licenses

[Rob Myers <robmyers AT mac.com>]

On 9 Feb 2004, at 17:56, Mike Linksvayer wrote:

> They _do_ need a CC license.

How are they adding to the commons?

>  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.

Fair enough, but it is still coverable by a simple disclaimer and it is 
basically a way of getting end-users to pay for distribution, not 
adding to the commons.

If CC wants to make and explain such licenses that's very worthwhile, 
but IMVVVHO they shouldn't be listed too close to a free-as-in-freedom 
license. Again this would appear to be a faultline between advocacy, 
explanation and license-authoring.

> ND and NC licenses do not qualify as free.  They are gratis.

I'm more for freedom than beer... :-)

> 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.

Since I live in a country where the EU-DMCA has just been incorporated 
I do take this point.

>  The current ecology for software and other media are totally 
> different.

Again, point taken, but if CC was just about reflecting the current 
ecology surely you'd've gone into the EULA or DRM businesses... :-)

- Rob.