Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

cc-licenses - Re: Does CC-SA require a modifiable copy?

cc-licenses AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Development of Creative Commons licenses

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: Ricardo Gladwell <president AT freeroleplay.org>
  • To: Discussion on the Creative Commons license drafts <cc-licenses AT lists.ibiblio.org>
  • Subject: Re: Does CC-SA require a modifiable copy?
  • Date: Fri, 03 Dec 2004 15:00:05 +0000

Greg London wrote:
Ricardo Gladwell said:

I would both like to prevent downstream and upstream users from putting
work into a proprietary format, specifically because it prohibits re-use
by requiring down-stream users purchase expensive software, among other
reasons.

It's an understandable concern.

Thanks

But I think CC-SA has a safety valve for some of this.
Say Alice comes up with a roleplaying idea and licenses it CC-SA.
Proprietary Pete decides to implement Alice's game idea
into his proprietary software. The implementation is CC-SA,
but it is saved in Pete's proprietary format.

Cheap Charlie would like to use Pete's implementation without
paying Pete the $199 for Pete's proprietary software.

Pete's incentive is to get people to buy/use his software.
So, requiring an open format simply means that Pete won't
bother to create his implementation in the first place.
>
If you DO license it to require an open format, the idea
is that someone like ShareAlike-Sam will come along and
create open software that does the same thing as
Proprietary Pete's Program does, but under a open license.

I'm not sure I understand your example. Surely, ShareAlike-Sam (great names :) has to do all that work to get where he wants regardless of whether Pete creates his proprietary version of the software or not? Sure, Pete is giving Sam the idea, but then you can't copyright ideas so he's not giving Sam anything meaningful.

But Sam doesn't get his incentive to create a share-alike
version simply because the license requires an open, sharealike
format. He does it because he wants to contribute. And Sam
could just as easily find incentive to create his program
because he see's what Pete's software does and Sam decides
that he wants to create a share alike version of that program
and contribute it to people under an open license.

One could similarly argue that, by getting rid of ShareAlike altogether, one increases the incentive to create content because everyone will have to reverse engineer everything which will increase creative output overall.

For software and for documentation, it makes sense to require
an open format because the way they are used is basically
a text format or a word processor format, and that's about it.
And since there are plenty of open programs that support
text and word processing, no harm in requiring an open format.

I would accept that there aren't open formats for every media type which is why I suggested we make a Transparency Clause optional so that a CCPL user could select it for a work published in a media-type that has open formats if he/she so wished.

Once you start to get into other media, though, the setup changes.
Not every program has an open source equivalent, yet.
Allowing Pete to implement Alice's work into a format that requires
the purchase of his proprietary program will only amplify the
incentive for someone to create an open source version of
Pete's program.

Most digital software these days does have open source equivalents. With the advent of XML, the Internet, and popularisation of open standards there is a wealth of open formats out there, where once there were only a few, closed, proprietary formats.

But specifically forbidding the use of a file format from a
proprietary program seems like overkill. If nothing else, it
might create incentive for someone to create an open version
of that same program.

I appreciate that you dislike the Transparency option, but how do you feel about a "source" requirement: that a modifiable version of the content always be provided? So, for example, you cannot distribute a PDF without providing the "source" document, i.e. the word processor or PageMaker file you used to generate the PDF? Note, this source requirement makes no mention of open or closed formats.

Kind regards...

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




Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page