Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

cc-licenses - Attribution (again)

cc-licenses AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Development of Creative Commons licenses

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: Nathan Jones <nathan-cc AT optimo.com.au>
  • To: cc-licenses AT lists.ibiblio.org
  • Subject: Attribution (again)
  • Date: Wed, 16 Jun 2004 00:58:34 +1000

I've only just joined this list, thanks to my renewed interest in CC
following the release of the 2.0 licences. The weblog announcement of the
new versions sounded reasonable, but I have to admit I'd be in the 2%
that would like to waive attribution rights. In that sense, I've joined
this list too late - I should have been here when the licences were being
drafted...

+ Why I'd like attribution-free licences:

The example I have in mind is a play I'm writing. It's a play with a
message, so I'd like to minimise any barriers to its use: free to
distribute, perform, etc. I also don't want anyone to overlook it because
they have to include attribution. I know it sounds like a good candidate
for a public domain dedication, but there is one right I wish to reserve;
I don't want to allow derivations, because it's a sensitive subject and
someone could alter its meaning.

I realise I could waive the attribution requirement, but it seems a bit
clumsy. That is, I'd feel like a bit of a loser saying "you don't have to
attribute this", then linking to a licence that has a big BY symbol and
text about attribution.

+ How do I waive attribution rights?

With that said, what is the best way (or best text/metadata to use) if I
want to waive attribution for a BY-NC licence?

+ Why was the attribution option dropped?

It was considered -okay- to drop the attribution-free licences, because 98%
of people chose attribution. But what was the -reason- for dropping them?

If it is particularly difficult to maintain a larger number of licences,
I can understand that, especially since the aim is to develop local
copies around the world. (OTOH, new versions are not likely to be
frequent, plus updating existing licences should be easier than creating
new things like Share Music, Science Commons, etc.)

If they were dropped due to a belief that the extra option would
confuse people, I'd be interested to see what evidence there is of
confusion. Basically, I think the problems with the attribution option
need to outweigh the flexibility of letting people choose the best way to
licence their work.

--
Nathan Jones



  • Attribution (again), Nathan Jones, 06/15/2004

Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page