Development of Creative Commons licenses

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

On Sunday 06 March 2005 03:58 pm, Rob Myers wrote:
> On 6 Mar 2005, at 20:40, Greg London wrote:
> > (* by "ShareAlike", I mean everyone but me, the author.)
>
> But this is how the CC modules work. They are requirements placed on
> downstream users in return for licensing the work. I see the problem
> that you have identified, that the license doesn't affect the licensor,
> but this is true even of the mighty GPL. I have trouble with the idea
> of a self-binding license, possibly the closest I can think of is
> assigning one's copyright to the FSF.

Actually, I think a self binding license could prove useful and should be 
considered.
>
> Forking one's own work is presumably a freedom. But a CC license
> guarantees that the work that is licensed at any one moment cannot be
> un-licensed. And SA does affect the original licensor if they wish to
> use downstream work. 

I think the above is an important point to keep in mind.

> This isn't a "what's mine is mine, what's yours is 
> mine" license. I'm not defending NC in absolute terms, simply defending
> the right of individuals to exercise their freedom choose it as the
> least worst fit to what they wish to achieve socially or ideologically,
> even if I personally wish they wouldn't choose it.

As I have said elsewhere in the last day or so, I think NC-SA can have 
usefulness for those who have "moral" issues with placing certain types of 
work up for sale.

This does bring up certain interesting thoughts as to the "first sale 
doctrine" type issues with works licensed NC. For instance, I burn a CD with 
a bunch of NC licensed songs on it and give ti as a gift to a friend. At some 
later date, he takes it along with the rest of his CD collection down and 
puts it hock. Has he just broken the law?

all the best,

drew

http://www.archive.org/search.php?query=creator%3A%22drew%20Roberts%22