Development of Creative Commons licenses

[Rob Myers <robmyers AT mac.com>]

On Monday, March 07, 2005, at 12:58PM, drew Roberts <zotz AT 100jamz.com> wrote:
>On Monday 07 March 2005 07:20 am, Greg London wrote:
>> 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

"Art for art sake" is an aesthetic argument, not a financial one, so argument 
ad lazarum doesn't really fit. Like "software libre", "l'art pour l'art" 
doesn't stop you from charging for your work: it just guides the ethics of 
the creation of your work. The idea of the "starving artist" is a much better 
fit, and is indeed bogus.

Since most artists/writers/musicians don't make a living from their primary 
work as the public would understand it (paintings/novels/CDs), auto-NC might 
help build a community (or market, depending on how you look at it) for the 
work they do that *does* allow them to make a living But they'd have trouble 
accepting fees for shows, readings, etc. so possibly not :-) .

This is a different case from fan culture, where fans are always downstream 
of the original work and so will be sharing and sharing alike with downstream 
users.

>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.

I'm slightly disturbed that being motivated by something other than money is 
considered oddball. The richest people I know are motivated by a love of 
business, for example. ;-)

>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?

Possibly a relicensing matrix on the CC site would be a useful resource?

- Rob.