Development of Creative Commons licenses

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

On Monday 07 March 2005 07:20 am, Greg London wrote:
> 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 just think the world is full of a wide variety of people who can have a 
wide 
variety of motivations, some of which we may consider oddball, but which 
still motivate them.

As long as the goal is to offer a spectrum of rights, I don't see why we 
should artificially limit the spectrum to those we think will be most popular 
or that we like the best. Who knows, it may be one that is only ever used by 
a few people that end up bringing about the "best" contribution.

Now, like I say, I might be mostly happy with only BY-SA and away we go. I 
don't like the idea of NC if it just put there to reserve the money for the 
original author. I also think such authors are most likely being short 
sighted and not appreciating the value that fans bring to the process. If you 
are not going to let a fan "profit" from his fan activities (actually, not 
always profit, just introduce money into) why should he be your fan and not 
someone who is more generous?
>
> 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.

Probably, but we will never know until the option exists and we emasure 
things 
after at least several years. We perhaps run the risks taken on by the 
command economy planners?
>
> 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.
>

As an aside, if I license a work, CC BY-NC, what licenses can be put on 
derivatives? CC BY-NC and CC BY-NC-ND?

all the best,

drew

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