Development of Creative Commons licenses

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

On Sunday 06 March 2005 04:09 pm, Rob Myers wrote:
> 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:

As far as I know, there has never been what I mean when I say NOBY-SA, I 
think 
when you say non-BY, you are talking of what I have been referring to as SA, 
which is ShareAlike with no requirement for attribution. When I say NOBY, I 
mean not only attribution not-required (as in SA) but attribution is 
forbidden, and you cannot put my name to the original work or your name to 
the derivative. Perhaps in other words, always anonymous.
>
> 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.

I agree it poses an odd problem as to how to protect a work (simply and 
inexpensively) by copyright without putting the author's name to the work.
>
> 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.

I know, I think the spectrum of rights are important and actually think they 
need to be broadened as much as I personally favour CC BY-SA for most work. 
(I GPL my programs.)
>
> > 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.

Yes, but i could always require those I consider imperative and "suggest" the 
rest. I don't always think force is needed, sometimes persuasion will do for 
the less important aspects. I don't think the experiment would hurt.

As to being ripped off, I know it can and will hurt, but it will also depend 
on if it is done within the confines of the license, or by breaking the law. 
I got into a lot of this stuff as a way of saying thanks to those who have 
given me so much, so I try to keep the intent of copyleft in front of my as 
well as the actual legalaties. If someone, to my mind, rips me off within the 
confines of the license, I will look to fix the license for future works.
>
> > 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.
>
> _______________________________________________
> cc-licenses mailing list
> cc-licenses AT lists.ibiblio.org
> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-licenses

all the best,

drew