Development of Creative Commons licenses

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

On Sunday 06 March 2005 12:33 pm, Rob Myers wrote:
> On 6 Mar 2005, at 04:12, Greg London wrote:
> > Alright, so if someone really thinks they'll
> > have a huge fan-culture following and create a
> > non-commercial community around it, then maybe
> > CC could give "ShareAlike" a different name
> > when it is combined with anything else.
>
> Fan culture is one example. I've seen calls for NC (-like) licenses for
> folk music, and I can't see anticapitalists going for non-NC, on
> principle.
>
> We cannot predict how people will want to use licenses, 

Indeed, we cannot predict how and we also cannot predict why. Well, we can 
predict all we want, but we have every chance of getting our predictions 
wrong. ~;-)


> but NC is a 
> common theme. For Free Software it's disastrous. For Free Culture, I
> don't like it but many people seem to. Maybe this will be a difficult
> learning experience.
>
> CC should not prescribe. But others can educate.

This is why I call for the three options as illustrated in:

BY-SA
NOBY-SA
SA

There may be instances where a creator does not want credit and further does 
not want anyone else seeking credit either. We should, on the one hand give 
creators options to suite their needs.

Mind you, on the other hand, I hate license multiplication, so I am hosed 
either way.

Perhaps each option should come with the choice for the creator to make it a 
legal requirement or a " moral requirement" as in "this is how I really want 
you to treat this work but I am not putting the legal requirement to do so on 
you."

Is that thought clear?
>
> > I'd be fine with something like "CC-NC-FAN".
> > Or "FC" for Fan Club, or whatever.
> > At least it would be an honest description.
>
> The licenses are modular. SA just means the other terms of the license
> must be re-applied to derived works. I don't think this is any kind of
> misrepresentation.

> > The thing is that ShareAlike combined with any
> > otehr license means that the original author
> > isn't really "sharing" and the author and community
> > aren't treated "alike". The community is really
> > treated more like a fan club than as equals.

Perhaps alike is meant to mean "under the conditions which this work was 
shared with you" and not that you and the original creator are treated alike.

Would "in like manner" be better terminology? As opposed to the connotation 
which may be comming up from the common phrase "share and share alike?"

http://www.answers.com/topic/share-and-share-alike


>
> I appreciate that the original author could re-license. This is the
> achilles heel of NC-SA for a true community license.
>
> > If a different name like "FC" were used, I think
> > CC might see their "pie chart" of licenses
> > shift because people would better understand
> > what the license they're picking actually does,
> > and change some of their choices.
>
> A fan license would be good as, like the Sampling license, it could fit
> the target community's "social contract" better. But this is not the
> only morally or ideologically understandable use of NC-SA (however
> misguided).
>
> - Rob.

all the best,

drew