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.

>> Which only proves my point. I haven't SEEN a CC project
>> that requires alphabet soup protection. Releasing a


>> vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
>> Every example of a successful, massive, long-term CC project has
>> been basically a massive aggregation project, aggregating small works
>> that don't segment easily into smaller chunks.
>> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
> This is an artefact of the definitions being used. And even the oldest
> CC project is only 2 (!) years old, as opposed to Linux's 10+ and GNU's
> 20.
>
> The whole sampling, remixing, mashup thing is just getting going with
> CC.
>

>> opsound doesn't need source code requirements because it is basically
>> an aggregation of independently created songs. opsound doesn't need
>> share-alike, it could just as easily use CC-BY, because there is no
>> massive chain of derivations going on.
>
> The fact that there are no massive chains is more related to the youth
> of the project. This is similar to the debate over whether Open Source
> can foster "innovation".

So, the first half of my point that
there are no massive derivation chains in any CC projects.

You seem to agree, but sweep it under the
"CC is too young" rug.

Can I at least get an acknowledgement that there are,
at this moment, no large multimedia projects that consist of
massive derivations of work upon work?

Regardless of the reasons why it is that way, can we
at least agree on the current state of affairs?

The second half of my point is I think it's that way
because multimedia doesn't segment as easily,
and because the payoff isn't as great for multimedia
projects. a ton of work goes into a Linux app,
and people will use it over and over and over.
A ton of work goes into a movie and most people will
watch it once and that's it; an hour and a half of
viewer satisfaction, and then your done.

I don't have way to prove my understanding is correct.
I can only point to the current state (which I hope
we agree on that, at least) of multimedia CC projects
being mostly aggregations and much less about derivations.

if you think people are going ot start cranking out
feature length CC-SA movies in 5 to 10 years, I hope
you're right, but I can't agree with that prediction
now. And we'll just have ot agree to disagree on that.

But as I see it, free projects that aren't tied into
software all seem to be crystalizing along points
where the project is more about aggregating small,
managable, works.

And while those kinds of projects might benefit from
CC-ShareAlike, I don't think there is so much
deriving and transforming going on that transparent
source is needed for them to be successful.