Development of Creative Commons licenses

[Rob Myers <robmyers AT mac.com>]

On Friday, April 29, 2005, at 04:28PM, Greg London <email AT greglondon.com> 
wrote:

>
>Rob Myers said:
>> On Friday, April 29, 2005, at 03:45PM, Greg London <email AT greglondon.com>
>
>>>Namely, I would like to propose some sort of
>>>license that would not allow any monetary exchange
>>>whether it be for profit or nonprofit.
>>
>> How would this compare with the GPL's "reasonable fee" for media?
>> How would I pay for the bandwidth to fetch nme-licensed media?
>> These may just be questions of fine tuning, but a poorly tuned nme license
>> could produce content that no host or network will touch with a bargepole.
>
>Obviously, it would be moot if no one can transmit the work.
>But a smaller loophole with a small list of unknowns
>is better than a big loophole with a big list of unknowns.

It's not so much a loophole as the possibility that the very requirement may 
be impossible as phrased. That is, some monetary exchange will in some way 
accompany any delivery of content. 

Therefore a GPL-style clause stating that paying for media is OK might be the 
best limit. This would not allow 501k's or state educational institutions to 
charge through the nose for NC content, and would not make NME content 
problematic for peer-to-peer networks existing on commercial services (ie all 
of them).

But then again if enough NME content was sold then even just charging (a 
little over the going rate) for media might make money. So this isn't truly 
noncommercial. But then we're back to relative loophole sizes (and I agree 
absolutely the smaller the better, and NC does seem to be the greatest 
potential source of loopholes in the license modules).

- Rob.