Development of Creative Commons licenses

[drew Roberts <zotz AT 100jamz.com>]

On Saturday 05 March 2005 01:45 pm, Greg London wrote:
> drew Roberts said:
> > On Saturday 05 March 2005 09:47 am, Greg London wrote:

>
> I don't mind BY-SA, though I think there really ought to be a way
> to turn attribution off.

I agree but go further. I think BY-SA, SA, and NOBY-SA all make sense and 
should be seriously considered.

>
> I dont mind SA.
> I dont mind NC.
>
> But I think the combination NC-SA is a reflection of a lack
> of understanding of how the licenses work.
>
> > I can imagine circumstances where NC has a place for other than economic
> > reasons. What about the option for a binding pledge on the part of the
> > original author to not excercise his right to the commercial option when
> > releasing BY-NC-SA?
>
> If they aren't going to exercise their commercial option then they
> should release the the commercial rights, licensing it CC-SA.
>
> What would be the point of creating a work so that NO ONE
> could exercise it commercially?
>
> If the author wants to sell it, fine.
> But if they don't, what is the point of
> making it so that no one can?
> Why not allow the power of commercial
> sales and advertising put the work out
> into the world?

Perhaps they believe that theirs is true art and that true all tru art is 
tarnished and cheapened by money?

Perhaps they have done a new translation of a book of the bibel and don't 
want 
it to be sold?

Perhaps they are running a series of marketing tests and are releasing a 
series of similar works under different licenses and are observing and 
tabulating the results?
>
> Yes, copyright gives all these rights to authors.
> And the authors can give up whatever rights they wish,
> or they can keep them all.
>
> But some combinations are more a reflection of an
> author not making a hard choice about what they want to do,
> and all their repurcussions.

I know that this is your take, but you are not in their heads.
>
> But wait, there's more.
> if you order by midnight tonight,
> you'll get this free steak-knife set.
> Call now. operators standing by.
>
> I assume most people are doing it because they simply
> don't understand all the license variations and how
> they work, and how they affect each other when they
> combine.
>
> Which is why I think CC really ought to make an effort
> to educate the people who select licenses so that

No problem with the idea that CC should educate as to expected and observed 
results from different license choices. No problem with CC recommending 
certain licenses above others.

Like I said, I like the SA option and I would like all the possibilities 
under 
SA open to me simply. (SA, BY-SA, and NOBY-SA)

Where NOBY-SA means you are not to give me credit and you cannot take credit 
for derivatives. Now, like I think I said a few days ago, how to 
inexpensively and simply keep copyright to a work while hiding is something I 
have not fully figured out yet, but I can see the occasional need to do this.

> "CreativeCommons" doesn't start getting equated with "Ronko"
> and "ShareAlike" doesn't start sounding like "Free Utensil".
>

all the best,

drew