Development of Creative Commons licenses

[Daniel Carrera <dcarrera AT math.umd.edu>]

James Nash wrote:

> Now while I don't want people to just take the report, make some changes 
> and call it their own, I *do* want them to be able to quote it, and to 
> reuse or build upon the ideas covered within it.

None of the 2.0 licenses allow people to "make some changes and call it 
their own". At first glance, it looks like what you really want is 
attribution. And that is provided by all 2.0 licenses.

Fair use will allow people to quote a short snip from your work, but 
that's it. If you want to allow people to quote something substancial, you 
probably want another license.

As for ideas, those are not covered by copyright anyways. You can only 
copyright your work, not your ideas.

> Can someone please confirm that people will still have this freedom 
> with the above license and if not tell me which CC license I can use to 
> ensure this.

I'm afraid that, as far as I can tell, the license you've chosen will not 
allow people that freedom. Though I suggest that you not take my word for 
it and wait to see what others say.

May I add... that I personally don't like the ND requirement. It just 
feels wrong, within the context of Creative Commons. But that's just an 
opinion of course.

Let's think about what you want people to be able to do with your work. 
Let's see...

1) You don't want them to claim ownership.

All the BY-* licenses do that.

2) Do you want to allow them to make money from your work?
3) Do you want to require them so share their work back to the commons?

Cheers,
-- 
Daniel Carrera          | I don't want it perfect,
Join OOoAuthors today!  | I want it Tuesday.
http://oooauthors.org   |