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: Rob Myers <robmyers AT mac.com>
  • To: Discussion on the Creative Commons license drafts <cc-licenses AT lists.ibiblio.org>
  • Subject: Re: distribution of licenses
  • Date: Sun, 6 Mar 2005 21:09:37 +0000

On 6 Mar 2005, at 18:43, drew Roberts wrote:

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.

I think I argued in favor of non-BY when it was removed. But it may be possible that attribution:

a) Fits the social contract of creative culture, of its "reputation economy". (Does anybody have a better phrase than "social contract"?)
b) Is necessary to allow source material to be found.
c) Makes sure that people know that work is licensed, which is obviously important.

Art/literature/music/film/etc. are not the same as computer programs, the dynamics of finding out whether something is licensed and who by are different. BY *may* be a reasonable way of doing this. Or it may be an analog to the BSD obnoxious advertising clause. I'm open to argument either way on this.

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

I was relieved to see that OSI have got the idea that too many licenses are bad.

But CC are committed to a "spectrum of rights". This is an empowering idea, even if I personally would just like a GPL for culture. I think that CC-Sampling is probably the best fit for the social contract of sharing in music and art, but I use CC-BY-SA as I feel it is important to have and give access to a wider culture.

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."

I sympathise with this position, but people tend to be relaxed about licensing only until they are first ripped off. WINE is a good example of this in the Free Software world.

Is that thought clear?

Yes.

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.

And indeed this is how SA is defined, IIRC.

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?"

Ah, I see Greg's objection more clearly now. Yes, "Same Conditions" (ST), "Must Relicense" (MR) or something would be better, although I can't see CC changing the terminology now.

- Rob.

--
http://www.robmyers.org/art - All my art, Creative Commons Licensed.
http://www.robmyers.orgt/weblog - Free Culture and Generative Art blog.





Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page