Development of Creative Commons licenses

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

Rob Meyers wrote:
> On 31 May 2005, at 15:36, Greg London wrote:
>> But as far as I can tell, CC-BY-SA has the same problem only
>> WORSE because EVERYONE can put in a URL to their political cause.
>
> 2.5 allows either additional or replacement attribution as far as I
> can make out.

I don't know what that means.

The way I understood it, Walter has a wicked project using CC-Wiki.
Contributers who agree to Walters user agreement will have their
contributions rolled in with attribution to Walter's project.
When someone comes across a CC-Attribution work by Alice that
would be really great for Walter's project, it can be rolled in
one of two ways: (1) don't ask Alice, just give attribution to
her like anyone else. Anyone who now uses Walters project must
attribute walters project and Alice. (2) talk to alice, ask
her if she's willing to agree to roll her contribution into
the project with attribution to the project.


So, the way I take it, CC-Wiki is the closest thing there is
to waiving attribution. NoNameNick likes to contribute stuff
but would prefer to waive attribution. If the project is CC-Wiki,
then he can reassign attribution to the project, which is
functionally equivalent to waiving it.

Before Nick contributed, attribution was to Walter's Wicked Wiki.
After he contributed, there is no additional attribution on
Walters project.

As far as I can tell, CC-Wiki is the one and only way to
allow contributers to waive attribution. I've been only
screaming for this option for a year or so now, so as far
as I can tell, CC-Wiki is a good thing.

It doesn't DEMAND contributers waive attribution.
If someone really, really, really, insists on getting
attribution, they can license their piece CC-BY
and roll it into the wiki that way, assuming the
project allows it (which it may want to allow to take
advantage of all the CC-BY stuff already out there)

(I assume that Walter could decide that he'll only
accept CC-Wiki stuff. Then he won't be able to roll
in CC-BY stuff, and he'll only get contributions
from people willing to contribute anonymously,
but the end product will have a single attribution
requirement, rather than a laundry list of names
and URL's.)

Finally, as far as I can tell, Walter's project
can be rolled into another CC-Wiki or CC-SA project.

Sarah has a CC-SA project. She has a bajillion
contributers and they all get individual attribution.
Sarah happens across Walter's wicked wiki.
She likes it. She really really likes it.
She decides to roll it into her project.
She then adds "Walters Wicked Wiki" to her attribution
laundry list, (along with any individuals who get
individual attribution via walters project, such as Alice)

Walter cannot prevent Sarah from doing this,
as far as I can tell. Walter's work demands
attribution to his work. But I don't think it
excludes attribution to other authors for other
works. So, Sarah should be able to roll in
Walter's stuff and attribute his project
as if it were a single individual.

Same goes for Icky and his CC-Wiki project.
He ought to be able to roll in Walter's
work as if it were a single contributer,
and then Icky's work would attribute
Icky and Walter.

Basically, the way I understand CC-Wiki
is that it is the closest thing there is
to individual's being able to waive
attribution for their contributions
but still keep the projects all compatible
with each other.

>> I have said for years that attribution is a market-economy
>> license and doesn't belong on gift economy licenses like ShareAlike.
>
> A simple market/gift split doesn't capture the issues.
>
> Attribution is a *reputation* economy license module. The reputation
> economy drives both the market and gift economies, and, yes, is a
> burden on both as well.

I don't buy the notion that "reputation" is outside of the
market/gift split. A market economy license is ANY license
that has some benefit for the individual contributer.
There is some sort of payoff for working under a market
economy license. money or reputation or free advertising
or whatever, it's an individual benefit or payoff, so it's
market economy.

A gift economy is, at its heart, a SELFLESS license.
Individuals may get personal satisfaction/reward
for contributing under a gift economy license,
but they can't force anyone to satisfy/reward them.
I contribute anonymously to wikipedia, for example.
It makes me "feel good" to do that, but that isn't the
same as burdening the WORK to demand that it make me
feel that way.

And YES, I get that reputation is one way to give
contributers incentive to contribute to an otherwise
free project. Walter and his wiki project doesn't
have a budget, so Walter gives out attribution
because it doesn't cost him anything directly and
it might get more peopel to contribute.

But attribution DOES have a cost. It just happens
to accumulate extremely slowly

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