Development of Creative Commons licenses

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

On Monday 28 March 2005 07:13 pm, Glenn Otis Brown wrote:
> not sure if this has been answered yet, but the reasons for not
> extending the SA requirement to collective works are
>
> (1) to avoid the kind of confusion that sometimes happens with the GPL
> regarding aggregation of "free" and "nonfree" works -- happens quite a
> bit --
> early on we wanted to clarify between mere aggregations (no copyleft)
> and derivations (copyleft)

This is a valid point, but by allowing both options, that is to cover 
derivatives, collections and compilations. (Not actually cover, but really 
grant the license only in these circumstances.) And to cover only derivatives 
and not compilations and collections, that might actually help to clear up 
possible confusions when people investigate the differences in the choices.

In point of fact, I am asking CC to provide me with the option of preventing 
free and non-free compilations and collections where my work is free.

>
> (2) to avoid profilerating license options -- we already get a lot of
> feedback that there are too many options as it is. the marginal gain
> from adding a broader SA requirement outweighs costs in UI, etc.

Now, this is a much more weighty reason to my mind. However, it seems we 
already have a large number and unless we have plans on reducingthe number, I 
don't see the extra set causing undue additional problems. (At least from a 
proliferation point of view.)

Isn't one of the big problems with license proliferation the difficulties of 
using works published under different licenses in combined works?

Thanks for the response.

all the best,

drew

>
> On Mar 28, 2005, at 1:28 PM, drew Roberts wrote:
> > On Monday 28 March 2005 04:11 pm, Greg London wrote:
> >> drew Roberts said:
> >>> Do you know of any reason why SA
> >>> should not cover the same uses as NC?
> >>
> >> not sure. my guess is that it came from
> >> the way GNU copyleft licenses work.
> >> They allow works to be aggregated
> >> with non-copyleft works.
> >
> > Sure, I know how the GPL works, probably better than how the CC stuff
> > works.0
> >
> >> Some specific examples on the GNU website
> >> say they want their software to be
> >> distributable on a CD with non-GNU
> >> licensed works.
> >>
> >> The user can then do a local build on
> >> their machine, combining the copyleft
> >> stuff with the proprietary stuff.
> >>
> >> If you can't aggregate, you'd have
> >> to use separate CD's.
> >
> > If it is just a matter of history, CC did not have an issue with NC
> > even
> > though the GPL would. This would just be another of the spectrum of
> > rights to
> > keep/give up. Right?
> >
> > Does anyone know of any substantive reasons why SA should not cover
> > the same
> > uses as NC?
> >
> > all the best,
> >
> > drew
> > _______________________________________________
> > cc-licenses mailing list
> > cc-licenses AT lists.ibiblio.org
> > http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-licenses
>
> Glenn Otis Brown
> Executive Director
> Creative Commons
> glenn AT creativecommons.org
> +1.415.946.3065 (telephone)
> +1.415.336.1433 (mobile)
> ------------------------------------
> (cc) Some rights reserved.
> ------------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> cc-licenses mailing list
> cc-licenses AT lists.ibiblio.org
> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-licenses