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: Rob Myers <robmyers AT mac.com>
  • To: Discussion on the Creative Commons license drafts <cc-licenses AT lists.ibiblio.org>
  • Subject: Re: Extra restrictions on derivative works
  • Date: Tue, 10 Feb 2004 01:00:22 +0000

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.





Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page