Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

cc-licenses - Re: distribution of licenses

cc-licenses AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Development of Creative Commons licenses

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: "Branko Collin" <collin AT xs4all.nl>
  • To: Discussion on the Creative Commons license drafts <cc-licenses AT lists.ibiblio.org>
  • Subject: Re: distribution of licenses
  • Date: Tue, 1 Mar 2005 20:53:58 +0100

On 1 Mar 2005, at 11:51, Greg London wrote:
> Evan Prodromou said:

> > I think it would be really interesting to see a pie chart of
> > licenses by how many units were redistributed and how many new
> > derivative works were created.
> >
> > I'm pretty sure the *-NC-* licenses would dwindle to zero.
>
> I'd believe that, which is why NC combined with SA seems pointless to
> me. If NC derivs dwindle to zero, that those few derivatives are
> sharable is moot.
>
> So then my question is "If NC-SA doesn't make sense, why is it the
> biggest slice of the pie chart?"
>
> Or to flip it around, "Is there something that CC could do to better
> explain the licenses such that combinations like this become less
> common?"

Perhaps the selection process could point to succesful projects that
worked with such and such license.

Currently, if you go to the frontpage of http://creativecommons.org,
you get a very clear choice between "Find content" and "Publish
content". The two are not married, but divorced.

Also, a lot of CC-ed works I come across have just the "some rights
reserved" text to point to a CC license. It is unclear exactly which
license were chosen, as if that is unimportant. Perhaps those links
should exactly say which license was chosen.

Furthermore, when discussing licenses (on this list for instance),
people tend to use the two letter codes, which is likely to be
unclear to people chosing a license for the first couple of times
(assuming they choose more than once).

--
branko collin
collin AT xs4all.nl




Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page