Development of Creative Commons licenses

[Rob Myers <robmyers AT mac.com>]

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.