Development of Creative Commons licenses

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

Yes. if you used CC-BY-NC-SA and had 100 authors
daisy chain one derivative to the next until
you ended up with some great-great-great-grandchild
derivative of the work, you would have to attribute
all 100 authors, and you would need the permission
of all 100 authors to use that work commercially.

because of this, NC-SA is a good way to guarantee
that the resulting work of a large community
will never be used commercially, can never be used
commercially, because you'll need to track every
author who contributed to the project and get their
permission to alter the license under which they
contributed to the project.

I actually think this is a bad outcome.
NC-SA seems to be a good license for a "fan club"
and that's about it. But that's my personal opinion.

I do not work for or speak for Creative Commons.

Greg

Bounty Hunters: Metaphors for Fair IP Law.
http://www.greglondon.com/bountyhunters/



Improbulus said:
>
> Thanks for your quick and helpful answer Greg.
>
> What about permission for commercial use, would the permission of every
author in between, all the way back to the original, be needed too?
>
> -----Original Message-----
>
> From: Greg London [mailto:email AT greglondon.com]
>
> Sent: 20 April 2005 23:06
>
> To: Improbulus; Discussion on the Creative Commons license drafts
>
> Subject: Re: Attribution Non-commercial Share Alike - question
>
> Attribution goes all the way back to the original author.
>
> Every author in between must be attributed.
>
> An alternative is the CC-Wiki license which has downstream authors assign
attribution to a central project rather than listing every individual.
>
> But if you want attribution even when the
> great-great-great-great-great-grandson of your original work is born, then
use CC-Attribution.
>
>
>
>
>
> Improbulus said:
>
>> It seems to me that Attribution Non-commercial Share Alike is the
>
>> closest to what I'm looking for, but there is one point which is
>
>> unclear to me, and I'd be very grateful if someone would be so kind as to
clear it up please?
>
>>
>
>> In relation to derivatives, I'd be happy for people to build on my
>
>> work. But if they have to release their work on the same terms, surely
>
>> this just means that anyone who then builds upon that derivative work
>
>> only needs to credit the creator of that derivative work (and get
>
>> their permission for commercial use etc), and doesn't have to credit me or
get my permission as well?
>
>>
>
>> In other words am I right in thinking there's only one "generation" of
>
>> permission/attribution that's needed for share alike, and you don't
>
>> have to go back to previous/original authors?
>
>>
>
>> If the first derivative work is very heavily based on your work, how
>
>> do you prevent this generation upon generation dilution of your right
>
>> to be involved, which could of course get worse if someone else
>
>> produces another derivative work based largely on the first derivative
work, etc?
>
>>
>
>> Would the only way be to forbid derivatives altogether?
>
>>
>
>> Many thanks in advance
>
>> Improbulus.
>
>>
>
>> _______________________________________________
>
>> cc-licenses mailing list
>
>> cc-licenses AT lists.ibiblio.org
>
>> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-licenses
>
>>
>
>
>
> --
>
> Hungry for a good read? Crave science fiction?
>
> Get a taste of "Hunger Pangs" by Greg London.
>
> http://www.greglondon.com/hunger/
>
>
>
> http://consumingexperience.blogspot.com/






-- 
Bounty Hunters, Metaphors for Fair IP Law.
http://www.greglondon.com/bountyhunters/

Hungry for a good read? Crave science fiction?
Get a taste of "Hunger Pangs" by Greg London.
http://www.greglondon.com/hunger/