Development of Creative Commons licenses

["Greg London" <email AT greglondon.com>]

drew Roberts said:
> On Sunday 06 March 2005 06:48 pm, Greg London wrote:
>> For ShareAlike, the only thing I came up with was "FanClub".
>> It isn't as "sexy" as sharealike, but it has natural
>> connotations that match the reality of a CC-NC-SA license.
>> There is an author and there are fans. The author does
>> commercial sales of his work. The fans do non-commercial stuff.
>> That is exactly what CC-NC-SA does. Or maybe "FanCommunity"
>> because it does create a community, but it is noncommercial only.
>>
>> Anyway, now that I finally explained my point, maybe someone
>> a little more creative can come up with some alternative names.
>>
>> ShareAlike could then be reserved for CC-SA only, which would
>> be true to its namesake.
>>
>
> What if an author could bind himself to NC as well when releasing BY-NC-SA?
> Would SA fit in that case?

It would fit.  I don't understand why an author
would do it, and I really don't want to get into
a debate about "art for arts sake" versus
"argument ad lazarum", but it would fit.
http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/logic.html#lazarum

I also think the number of people who would bind
themselves to NC would be a much smaller slice of
the pie chart than the people who license their
work NC-SA and intend to sell it at the first opportunity.

I'd rather focus on the big slices of the pie.
NC-SA is the biggest slice and its a big misnomer.

There must be some two-word phrase that describes
the situation where teh author holds the commercial
rights to himself and allows downstream readers to
play with it non-commercially. I'm stuck on "fan club",
which seems to be a no-show for everyone else.

I suppose an alternative would be to drop the "Alike"
from ShareAlike when another license requirement
is added to it. Then "NonCommercial-ShareAlike"
would instead be referred to as "NonCommercial-Shared".
It doesn't present itself to a two letter acroynym, though.
If no one has a problem with a one-letter
acroynym, then maybe it could just be CC-NC-S

"Share" by itself has a natural connotation that
doesn't quite match what's going on with CC-NC-SA,
but at least with "Non-Commercial" acting as a adverb
to the verb "Share", it is an honest vocabulary.

ShareAlike invokes "Share and Share Alike" and
that definittely conflicts with what NC-SA really does.

Someone could say "I'll share this non-commercially"
and it isn't the same kind of oxymoron that saying this is:
"I'll share and share alike this work, but I'll keep
the commercial rights and you guys get the non-commercial
rights only"

My gut tells me there will be an attachment to using
"share" because it's hip. So something like "fan club"
might be too hard a sell. But at least if the "Alike"
part got dropped when combined with other restrictions,
then it wouldn't be an oxymoron.

How about CC-NC-S ?
Or maybe CC-NC-SH just to keep the TLA's going.