Development of Creative Commons licenses

[Ricardo Gladwell <president AT freeroleplay.org>]

On Fri, 2004-12-03 at 18:38, Greg London wrote:
> I would not support that idea. I think it makes sense for some projects,
> but I think it is overkill for others. For a license that is specific to
> software, it makes sense because the only way for software to be useful
> is if you can compile and/or modify it.

It's trivial to think of some examples where it is useful, if not
necessary, to provide an editable "source" copy of a compiled (that is,
a copy in the "preferred format for making modifications"). A simple
case is providing a document in PDF format. It's pretty tricky,
especially for non-technical users, to extract the raw text information,
unless you go through the laborious process of copying the data by hand.
This creates an artificial technical barrier for SA-CC user's to
exercise their fundamental right to create derivative works, for
example.

> For something like Creative Commons, where teh licenses can cover pretty
> much ANYTHING taht can be copyrighted, it doesn't make sense to me to
> require user-editable source in an "acceptable" format, because "editable"
> and "acceptable" would be a lot of headaches from a legal standpoint,
> and it could easily prohibit legitimate uses simply because someone
> doesn't think the format is easy enough to edit or an "accepted" format.

If you read my previous emails, its pretty easy what is to determine
editable and acceptable (open formats) with a little thought. Most
digital forms are either compiled from a "source" document (PageMaker
files in the case of PDFs, layered image formats in the case of images)
or can themselves be considered to be editable given the correct
software.

Non-digital forms are more tricky but exceptions can be made for these,
and the CCPL only seems to be applicable to digital formats anyway. The
FDL contains a pretty succinct definition of "Transparent" formats and
I'm sure the FSF wouldn't mind you copying for the purposes of modifying
the CCPL. Where exactly do you foresee these headaches coming from?

> If Poser is the only way to get CGI models of human facial expressions,
> then excluding someone from doing something with your CC-SA work in Poser
> because Poser costs a lot of money isn't the answer.

You seem to be confusing both the proposed "source" clause and the "open
format" clause as one and the same thing: they are separate and you can
consider the "source" clause without the "open format" clause. So, in
the above example you are right, you couldn't use Poser in the above
example if you had the "open format" clause, but you could use Poser if
you had the "source" clause.

I agreed that not all media-types allow for the possibility of open
formats which is why I suggested making the Transparency clause
optional. Do you still consider this clause to be unacceptable even if
it is optional, in the same way that NC is optional?

> The point of copyleft protections is to protect the gift economy
> you are trying to create from being swallowed by proprietary
> competition and to allow all other uses of a work.
> 
> Copyleft prevents Microsoft from taking Linux, modifying to their
> proprietary code, and selling their proprietary version in direct
> competition with Linux. Copyleft prevents Proprietary-Pete from
> using ShareAlike-Sam's work to put Sam out of business.
> 
> The point is not to prevent the work from being >used< for
> any and all proprietary purposes.

I think you are misunderstanding: my objective is not to prevent people
from using the work for proprietary purposes:

a) my objective with the "source" clause is to prevent people from only
distributing non-editable media (such as PDFs).

b) my objective with the "open format" clause is to prevent people from
distributing media in formats that require expensive software to edit.

The above has nothing to do with making profit and only with ensuring
freedoms (in this case, the ability to create derivatives) are not
prohibited by having a cost of entry to use.

> I don't see how allowing someone to use your work in Poser
> will harm the gift economy you are trying to establish.

I have the feeling that I am wasting my words here and that it doesn't
matter what arguments I make, for some people the decision has already
been made and will be argued for regardless. Greg,apologies, but you
seem to ignore much of what I am saying and cherry-picking those remarks
you feel you can "win".

Kind regards...

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