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: Rob Myers <robmyers AT mac.com>
  • To: cc-licenses license drafts <cc-licenses AT lists.ibiblio.org>
  • Subject: Re: Draft License 2.5 - Now open for discussion
  • Date: Tue, 31 May 2005 10:30:13 +0100

http://creativecommons.org/weblog/entry/5457

When cc-wiki was announced I was worried that allowing attribution to an organisation would allow WMIMWYIM (What's Mine Is Mine What's Yours Is Mine) for the 'reputation economy'. The first use of cc- wiki, to ensure that dozens of people's names don't have to appear on the cover of Code 2.0 bore this out, and I can imagine how popular cc- wiki would have been for non-wiki projects.

So a license that requires attribution to an organisation may be dangerous, even if it fits the social contract for Wikis (I cannot comment on this as I'm not much of a Wikitarian). It could also be confusing for enforcing license violations, as only the copyright holder can enforce a license IIRC, and if the license says "MyWiki" but the work was submitted by psuedonym AT dead-isp.com, there's a problem.

The cases Mia lists of colleges or journals requiring attribution show that attribution can become even more of an "advertising clause" (as in the original BSD license). I don't want to derive from work that has a political party, activist outfit, particular church or another interest group's members sticking a plug for their pet cause in on a work I want to derive from via 2.5 attribution. Having a URL you have to give is bad enough (you can create a "linkback bomb" to advertise your cause), being able to list a cause in the license block would be terrible. Is this a possibility with 2.5 attribution?

If I submit work to a German (for example) wiki and the 2.5 attribution is to the wiki, my Moral Right of Attribution is still inalienable, and I can still demand to be identified as the author of the work, I think.

But then the language is voluntary or customisable, then we are right back to where we were with waving attribution. People have to be asked, or it has to be arranged up front, or people forget.

I think this is a maturity issue for Wikis (in the sense that many are now mature projects and have some work to do to reflect this) rather than something that requires creating a potentially misusable clause in the core CC licenses or a definitely misuable cc-wiki license.

I do see how enabling Wikipedia-style projects to keep their low barrier to contribution whilst removing bookkeeping headaches could be good. But this will affect projects other than wikis, possibly in undesirable ways, and wikis are the projects that can best keep track of complex attribution anyway.

*If* attribution is important to Wiki users, and *if* people contribute to wikis on the understanding that their work will be part of the wiki, then arguments about what happens for the book version (for example) are arguments about how best to misuse contributors work. Would the wiki operators who want attribution to their project rather than to individuals be happy with a scheme that transferred copyright to CC and attributed the CC-Wiki-Real-Commons-License rather than any given wiki? If not, why not? It would solve more problems than having to attribute to people's wikis.

- Rob.




Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page