Development of Creative Commons licenses

[drew Roberts <zotz AT 100jamz.com>]

On Wednesday 20 July 2005 03:17 am, Rob Myers wrote:
> On 20 Jul 2005, at 06:54, Takemoto wrote:
> > Hence if someone opensources their software then people will keep
> > coming back to their site to download later versions, and hopefully
> > make donations, and contributions, or order work (especially if the
> > name of the software is copyright).
>
> But software projects fork, meaning that the original project won't
> get those advantages. "Copyrighting" (trademarking?) the project's
> name won't affect this.
>
> > However in the case of a book, people may not keep coming back to
> > the site of the creator if there are others that have published the
> > book.
>
> But another author cannot be the same author. If I like Steven King,
> I will want to download more Steven King books (and write fan
> fiction) rather than re-download the same books from a different site.
>
> > You think that it is not something about the software-licence match,
> > and that it is more a question of time. I think that there are
> > important
> > reasons why software is more appropriate to open sourcing. I am not
> > sure whether the same kind of success can be achieved in other
> > media but making licences for text that approach the GPL ("no binding"
> > is my suggestion) seems like a good thing to try.
>
> Software is text. Lots of music is open sourced. The lack of free
> literature (NC isn't free) is puzzling, and is presumably cultural or
> contractual.
>
> The license that approaches GPL is CC-BY-SA.

Yes, and that is why I am pretty much a BY-SA fan.

> That match is there. 

While I agree wit you thoughts, I think you miss what he meant by match. If I 
understand correctly, I think he is referring to a sweet-spot type match 
where the "properties" of software and the "provisions" of the license work 
together to generate success. So, he thinks, that, for instance, while BY-SA 
may have similar "provisions" to the GPL, text does not have similar enough 
"properties" to software for the "sweet-spot" match to occur. (Please correct 
where I have this wrong. Sometimes a third party can spot talking at cross 
purposes...)

> A  
> medium-specific license such as no-binding can easily be subverted
> (print the book on loose sheets and distribute it with a pre-glued
> cover), will be made irrelevant by advances in technology (ebooks)
> and prevents cultural re-use (turning a book into a play).
>
> - Rob

all the best,

drew

-- 
http://www.archive.org/search.php?query=creator%3A%22drew%20Roberts%22