Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

cc-licenses - Re: Music Sharing License Commentary

cc-licenses AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Development of Creative Commons licenses

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: Rob Myers <robmyers AT mac.com>
  • To: "cc-licenses AT lists.ibiblio.org" <cc-licenses AT lists.ibiblio.org>
  • Subject: Re: Music Sharing License Commentary
  • Date: Fri, 19 Mar 2004 09:57:32 +0000

On Friday, March 19, 2004, at 00:04AM, Evan Prodromou <evan AT wikitravel.org>
wrote:

>0) I think it's a bad idea for Creative Commons to be a license
> factory.

I covered some of these points a couple of months back. :-)

IMHO CC has three projects: writing licenses, explaining licenses and
advocating licenses. CC are doing very well with all three projects, but the
three may interact, and it's important to keep them separate and get the
priority right.

Too many licenses will dilute the brand as you point out. But just a few
licenses that aren't really commons/open/free licenses will destroy value in
the brand and, worse, give that value to people who have no intention of
returning it. Being popular by writing weaker licenses would not be as great
a success as educating people to use stronger licenses.

IMVVVHO CC should leave the licenses that aren't really commons/open/free to
the corporate and cultural wannabees, then describe those licenses clearly so
people can make an informed choice and encourage them to make the right
choice. This would be a win-win-win scenario.

Really I agree with Greg London that you only need two licenses: a GPL-style
one and a BSD-style one (I reached the same conclusion a couple of years ago
based on aesthetics rather than any deep understanding of the issues involved
:-)), but licensing and sharing licenses are important steps in the right
direction (whereas IMVVHO NC, etc. aren't).

- Rob.




Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page