Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

cc-licenses - Re: Draft License 2.5 - Now open for discussion

cc-licenses AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Development of Creative Commons licenses

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: Christian Fredrik Kalager Schaller <christian AT fluendo.com>
  • To: Discussion on the Creative Commons license drafts <cc-licenses AT lists.ibiblio.org>
  • Subject: Re: Draft License 2.5 - Now open for discussion
  • Date: Wed, 25 May 2005 12:29:49 +0200

While I understand your wish to be inclusive, your solution just screams
of being easily abusable. A CC license becomes next to worthless if
there is a global exception to it that anyone who wants to can make sure
to get under. Either we believe that the idea of CC is strong enough to
make the world around it change, like open source software have, or we
don't. If we don't then there is no point to CC licenses to begin with,
making this discussion moot. If we believe we have the best milk around,
the best way to succeed with it is not by giving away the cow.

Christian

On Tue, 2005-05-24 at 21:58 -0700, Matt Burrows wrote:
> It's important as a matter of practicality and efficiency.
>
> If a licensee has an exclusive agreement with Real, etc. which requires use
> of only encumbered media, then, according to the CC license, that licensee
> would not be able to use the work in question (under the CC license).
>
> In order to accommodate this, I proposed an out - i.e., if an exclusive deal
> exists, then that would be an exception. I would raise this to the level of
> "important" in anticipation (a hunch) that there are/will be a significant
> amount of encumbered media which would otherwise not be able to use works
> per the CC license at issue. If my hunch is wrong, fine, then the argument
> drops out. If my hunch is right, then the CC license should address it and
> try to work around this as much as possible - in order to remain inclusive.
>
> Re abuse, it really becomes a factual matter (which, ultimately, would need
> to be decided by a third party - e.g., a court). The question would be
> simply whether, at the time of the use, the licensee was subject to an
> agreement which required them to exclusively use a certain media (e.g.,
> Real) to the exclusion of all other media. As a practical matter, would
> something like this be litigated? - doubtful. This, therefore, could
> increase likelihood of abuse (as you suggest). Then again, the same could
> be said of other portions of the CC license. The risk of abuse, IMO, is
> outweighed by the benefit of encouraging CC licensing involving encumbered
> media.
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "drew Roberts" <zotz AT 100jamz.com>
> To: "Matt Burrows" <mburrows2 AT earthlink.net>; "Discussion on the Creative
> Commons license drafts" <cc-licenses AT lists.ibiblio.org>
> Sent: Tuesday, May 24, 2005 6:06 PM
> Subject: Re: Draft License 2.5 - Now open for discussion
>
>
> > On Tuesday 24 May 2005 07:47 pm, Matt Burrows wrote:
> > > I would add to the proposal below, the concept that you are not required
> to
> > > add the unencumbered version if prohibited by a third party agreement
> (eg,
> > > w/ RealMedia) in existence whenever the license is exercised. This
> would
> > > address situations where a licensee has an exclusive deal with a third
> > > party, such as Real.
> >
> > Why exactly do you think this is important, and how might you word it to
> > prevent abuse?
> >
> > all the best,
> >
> > drew
> > >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Nathanael Nerode <neroden AT twcny.rr.com>
> > > Sent: May 24, 2005 3:37 PM
> > > To: cc-licenses AT lists.ibiblio.org
> > > Subject: Draft License 2.5 - Now open for discussion
> > >
> > > Another thought. As the DRM clause is currently written, it prohibits
> > > encumbered distribution (e.g. RealMedia). If the DRM clause is
> rewritten
> > > so that you must provide an unencumbered version alongside every
> encumbered
> > > version, it would instead mean that, for instance, if you provided
> > > RealMedia you would *also* have to provide Ogg.
> > >
> > > This might be an easier sell to the proprietary-format shops: "You don't
> > > have to drop RealMedia, you just have to add this extra format. Which
> is
> > > free." This is probably a better way of getting a foot in the door,
> anyway.
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > cc-licenses mailing list
> > > cc-licenses AT lists.ibiblio.org
> > > http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-licenses
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > cc-licenses mailing list
> > > cc-licenses AT lists.ibiblio.org
> > > http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-licenses
> >
> > --
> > http://www.archive.org/search.php?query=creator%3A%22drew%20Roberts%22
> >
>
> _______________________________________________
> cc-licenses mailing list
> cc-licenses AT lists.ibiblio.org
> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-licenses





Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page