Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

cc-licenses - Re: Why do you have to chose the "Attribution" option with the new CC 2.0 Licenses?

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: Why do you have to chose the "Attribution" option with the new CC 2.0 Licenses?
  • Date: Mon, 16 Aug 2004 09:22:55 +0100

On Sunday, August 15, 2004, at 10:04PM, <toddd AT mypse.goracer.de> wrote:

>I did not find good arguments against making attribution standart in those
>mails...

Attribution is a requirement that you must comply with before you can use the
work. The work isn't "Free", you're paying for it with attribution. This was
a sticking point with the first BSD license, the "obnoxious advertising
clause" as the FSF put it.

I believe that people misunderstood the differences between attribution and
nonattribution in 1.0: I think that even if you chose nonattribution you
still got your name mentioned in the copyrights as part of the licensing (is
that right?).

>I want to supply authorship information. I just don't care wether ppl give me
>attribution or not.

You can give permission to waive along with the copyright/licensing block as
suggested in one of the postings.

>So why do you have so many licenses at all?
>by-nc-nd and by-nc-sa would be enough. People could just waive whatever they
>don't want. Just 2 licenses, doesn't that sound good?
>Or is it that all the waiving makes things more complicated?

See the BSD/GPL conflict. People just like different things. CC are providing
a good range of licenses that will satisfy most people whilst remaining
conceptually compatible. I personally think all licenses should be GPL-like.
This wouldn't be a popular position for CC. :-)

- Rob.




Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page