Development of Creative Commons licenses

["Greg London" <email AT greglondon.com>]

OSI does not address licenses outside of software licenses.
They have approved the GNU-GPL, but they have not
approved the GNU-FDL, specifically because it is for
documentation.

I'm not affiliated with OSI, but they tend to draw
a clear line between what is "open" and what is not
"open". If someone says their software is open source
but they license it "all rights reserved", OSI will
send them an educational email explaining what open
means in the software community.

were this to be applied to Creative Commons,
CC might need to draw a clear distinction between
what is an "Open" CC license, and what is
Free Advertising, etc.

The only CC licenses that would fit the spirit of
the Open Source Defintion would probably be:

CC-PD
CC-BY
CC-SA
CC-BY-SA

These are Gift Economy licenses.
All other CC licenses are Market Economy licenses
of one sort or another.

CC-EducationalOnly
CC-NonCommercial
CC-NoDerivs
CC-Sampling

These are too restrictive to place the work in a
Gift Economy. They do explicitely codify a type
of "Fair Use" without having to go to the
Supreme Court for a decision, which has its benefits.
But "Open Source" has only survived and thrived
because the licenses at heart are true Gift licenses.

If CC were to get an OSI certification on
CC-PD, then it might be asked to separate
the "Open" licenses from the "Non-Open"
licenses. Currently, they're all jumbled
together and no distinction is made between
any.

Greg

Draft the Gift Domain:
Put Free/Libre/Open/Public licensing
concepts directly into Copyright Law.
http://www.greglondon.com/dtgd/html/draftingthegiftdomain.html