Development of Creative Commons licenses

[Ricardo Gladwell <president AT freeroleplay.org>]

Greg London wrote:
> "Should a CC license require a modifiable copy?"
>
> No. The problem is that you're asking the wrong question.
> The question is:
>
> "Should a CC license require all human created pieces of teh work?"

Why is that the question? The question is should the CC license require 
a modifiable, digital copy. I don't think anyone would suggest that the 
CC license would require "all human created pieces of the work" - that 
is taking the argument to a ludicrous level.

> In that case, no, the artist shouldn't have to include the human
> created work. He could, however, photograph it, license that,
> and include the photograph with the licese.
>
> But to demand the artist use a particular format, i.e. photoshop,
> in CREATING the work has two problems, (1) it puts a restriction
> on the artist to the point that they may not be able to create
> the same work. Someone just might be better at creating music with
> a real drum set, and forcing them to create it on a computer and
> distribute it in MIDI format so that people can modify individual
> notes is killing the artist so that lazy people can use the work
> downstream.

I think it's a little extreme to characterise the down-stream users as 
'lazy' and 'killing the artist'. They're no more lazy than the upstream 
users - after all, they are just exercising their right to create 
derivative works imparted to them by the SA CCPL.

Similarly, no-one is 'demanding' that artists use Photoshop or any 
particular format - the suggestion is that a modifiable version of the 
content be made available - what precisely that format is should 
probably not be specified in the license. I think you're getting 
confused with the "source" requirement - that a modifiable copy should 
be made available so that, for example, you cannot distribute a PDF 
without a copy of a document in an editable format. The secondary 
requirement that a transparent, or open copy be made is separate to this.

> The other problem (2), is that the OSD says something to the effect
> that a license that attaches itself to some particular medium
> (5.25 floppy, for example) will not get OSI certified.

I'm sorry but I'm not sure I understand the particular requirement you 
are mentioning here? Who do you mean by the OSD? Do you mean the Open 
Source Initiative?

> The point is to allow artists to create their works in whatever
> method works best for them. For computer programs, it makes sense
> to zero in on source code in a text format because that's pretty
> much the only way you can compile anything. But for Creative Commons,
> you might have a guy whose good with bongo drums, and to say that
> he can't record a clip of him playing drums and license it CC because
> it isn't an easily modifiable copy is sorta missing the point.

The point is not just to allow artists to create their works any way 
they wish, but, in the case of Share Alike, also to allow downstream 
artists to use and modify that work for their own purposes. I don't 
think a reasonable solution is to totally ignore the needs of one in 
favor of the other.

I think the confusion arises over what is the definition of "source" for 
different types of media. There are various 'types' that one can 
consider and the arguments so far can be summarised as follows:

a) In the simplest case of computer programs, the source is the source code.

b) In the case of pure digital works - such as 3D animations and PDF 
documents - the source is the original, modifiable files that were used 
to create and generate the final version of work, which may or may not 
be the same as the work itself.

c) In the case of non-digital works, such as a painting or a recording 
of a bongo-drum session, where providing the source would be difficult 
if not impossible, then we should either i) not require modifiable copy 
be provided and only require that no-one prevents the copying of the 
piece (allow photos to be taken, recordings to be made, etc.) or ii) 
require only that a digital copy of the work should be provided (JPEG, 
MP3, etc.).

If people like Greg object so strongly, than a source provision could be 
made optional, although I personally believe this should be mandatory 
for SA CCPL to ensure that downstream artists can use the work 
unrestrictively to create derivative works, and the transparency clause 
should be optional.

--
Ricardo Gladwell
President, Free Roleplaying Community
http://www.freeroleplay.org/
president AT freeroleplay.org