Development of Creative Commons licenses

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

Rob Myers said:
> On 7 Dec 2004, at 20:13, Greg London wrote:
>
>> How did we get from me saying this:
>> (
>> https://lists.ibiblio.org/sympa/arc/cc-licenses/2004-December/
>> 001412.html )
>>> I just haven't seen a CC project that was big enough to require
>>> source, prohibit patents, etc, etc, that are the sort of overly
>>> restrictive license options needed for a big, massive, long-term
>>> project to survive.
>>
>> to you arguing this situation:
>> Evan Prodromou said:
>>> Consider: Alice makes Free Software, releases it, and forgets about
>>> it.
>>> Two years later, Bob finds it on a FTP server, likes it, modifies it,
>>> and starts maintaining it. It's a boon for the world. Alice and Bob
>>> don't have to share a CVS repository for their collaboration to occur.
>>
>> Alice didn't NEED share-alike, source requirements, patent exclusions,
>> DRM exclusions, to create her work in the first place.
>
> She doesn't not need it however.

She created the program on her own, according to Evan.
It wasn't a project. She didn't need anyone else's input.
Therefore she doesn't need any special licensing.
She could have worked under "All rights reserved" right
up until the day before Bob went googling and found her program.

A heavily armored copyleft license was irrelevant ot
Alice's success in producing the original work.

Whether the license was NEEDED to complete the first stage
of the work is completely separate from Bob/Charlie/Evan/Robert
WANTING Alice to contribute her work into a large gift economy
under an amored license.

DO you get the difference here?

Alice didn't need the license to create the work.

That is completely different than the CreativeCommons world WANTING
her to use an armored copyleft license to prevent anyone from
making a proprietary derived version of teh work later on.

You are effectively arguing that everyone should use
an armored copyleft license on all their donated works
on the off chance that it might morph into some larger,
and yet undefined, project.

But maybe Alice doesn't WANT to put her work under a heavily armored
copyleft license. Maybe she wants to go CC-PublicDomain.

Bob's project can still happen, and it doesn't NEED Alice
to use the armored license, which is my point.

There is a difference between a project NEEDING a license
to survive until it completes, and you guys WANTING a small
project to use a big license just so the work enters some
large, gaseous, etheral, undefined, project that has no
name other than "Free Culture".

>> If it's something she does as a one-off, she does alone, and her
>> end-result is a self-contained work,
>
> There's no such thing.

Don't blame me. This was Evan's scenario, not mine.