Development of Creative Commons licenses

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

side note: I'm on vacation starting tomorrow,
so if someone posts something to me and I don't
reply, it isn't because I'm blowing them off.

Rob Myers said:
>Greg London <email AT greglondon.com> wrote:
>>> No. With either license, a "big-name company" can approach the original
>>> author, who explicitly CAN re-license their own original work under
>>> whatever new terms they desire.
>
> They cannot, however, give an exclusive license to the old, GPL version. 
> They
> cannot unlicense that work.

we agree, we're just using different vocabulary.
The difference is in how you view the initial fork
that creates a FLOSS version and retains a PROPRIETARY version.

I used the word "original work" to describe the proprietary version.
You used the term "old" to describe the GPL version.

So, we agree, we're justing using conflicting vocabulary,
when we try to say which one came first, FLOSS or PROPRIETARY,
which could lead to chicken-or-egg arguments.

I'd say an author creates a proprietary version first,
(copyright is automatic as soon as the work is in fixed form)
and then he creates a floss/fork when he license it GNU-GPL.
While creating the floss/fork, he still maintains proprietary
rights to the original, automatic-copyright version.

The community can play with the floss/forked version,
but the author still retains the rights to do as he
wishes with the original proprietary version, including
creating a proprietary/fork version that expands upon
and differs from the floss/fork version.


timeline (time advances downward)

1) author creates work in fixed form,
automatic copyright grants him an
"All Rights Reserved" monopoly on work.
There is one version of teh work:
auto-ARR

2) author creates a floss/fork.
There are now two versions of the work,
Auto-ARR ===> FLOSS

3) community expands floss version
which then becomes a multi-author work
independent of the original author's control
Auto-ARR ===> FLOSS ===> FLOSS++

4) BigNameCorp notices floss version,
and buys a proprietary version of work
There are now three versions of work,
BNCProprietary <=== Auto-ARR ===> FLOSS++

The next step is where the difference between
CC-NC and GNU-GPL show up.

5:GPL+strong market) If there is sufficient market for the
work, BNC's competitors can leverage the FLOSS++
version to compete with BNC's proprietary version.
SuperBNCProprietary <=== Auto-ARR ===> SuperMultiCorpFloss

5:GPL+weak market) if there is a weak market,
then BNC will not have much of any competition.
The public community may be invigorated to
maintain the FLOSS version on par with the
proprietary version in hopes of attracting
a floss-friendly corporate ally. If it is a
weak market, there is less incentive for BNC
to get a proprietary fork in the first place,
and if they do, their return-on-investment
will be small, meaning it would take little
effort for a floss-friendly corporate ally
to maintain the floss version on par with
the BNC proprietary version.
WeakBNCProprietary <=== Auto-ARR ===> WeakMultiCorpFloss

5:CC-NC) If the author had created a CC-NC fork
instead of a FLOSS/GNU-GPL fork, then the
BNCProprietary version of the work only has to
compete against the FLOSS++ version as supported
by the volunteer community who was just "betrayed"
by the original author, killing off much of the
volunteer support, further helping BNC to create
a better version than the public version.
SuperBNCPOroprietary <=== Auto-ARR ===> (FLOSS++)-lostcommunity

(analysis)

WIth GPL, in either a weak or strong market,
a proprietary fork is counter-balanced by
floss-friendly corporate allies, so the
public version remains on par with the
proprietary vesrion, thus removing much
of the incentive for BNC to attempt a
proprietary fork in the first place.

With a NonCommercial license, BNC is
actually encouraged to devour the work
and overcome the public version.

And for those companies who are attempting
to use GNU-GPL as free advertising for their
proprietary version, it generates nearly the
same result as an author using CC-NC. The
community may feel betrayed by the author/company,
and public support for the floss version can
peter out. At that point, the company may as
well be selling a purely proprietary version
because they have no community to leverage,
the only people working on the product are
their employees.