Development of Creative Commons licenses

[Rob Myers <robmyers AT mac.com>]

On 23 Feb 2004, at 16:56, email AT greglondon.com wrote:

> On Mon, 23 Feb 2004 00:30:55 -0500, Sal Randolph wrote:
> > By licensing the work in the first place, artists are stating that it
> > is theirs to copyright and license.  I really feel that is sufficient.
>
> I agree. Copyright grants exclusive rights to the Author,
> and a License is a grant by the Author to give some,
> none, or all of those rights back to some, none, or
> all of the public.
>
> A Copyright Notice (Copyright 2004 Greg London)
> followed by a License, (All Rights Reserved)
>
> is a claim that the work is mine and that I have the
> right to license it as I see fit.

I asked about this on the OGL list. An "authority to contribute" clause 
has two advantages:

1. Idiots won't believe a CC license has magic powers to allow them to 
pirate copyrighted material.
2. Mis-representing your right to contribute becomes a breach of 
license, so could make some problem cases simpler in theory.

- Rob.