Development of Creative Commons licenses

[Julian Rohrhuber <rohrhuber AT uni-hamburg.de>]

Dear list,

maybe this is interesting, so I post it here.


At 8:11 Uhr -0700 29.07.2005, Mike Linksvayer wrote:
> I'm going to take a wild guess that "algorithmic output" (waaay too 
> broad a term, but I can't think of anything else yet) might just be 
> copyrightable by the algorithm's creator (in which case another CC 
> scheme is not necessary, just use whatever license you prefer for 
> the output).
>
> Surely there have been disputes concerning ownership of screensaver 
> output (apart from screensavers that have mickey mice or other 
> copyrighted elements bouncing around) and some resolution thereof?
>
> You should seek the advice of a lawyer.  Also feel free to join 
> cc-licenses (see http://creativecommons.org/discuss) and copy this 
> there, it's possible some other CC fan/critic has encountered this 
> issue.
>
> Julian Rohrhuber wrote:
> > >  Hi Julian,
> > >
> > >  The CC licenses available from 
> > > http://creativecommons.org/license/ handle points 1, 3, and 4 
> > > (depending what you mean by "protected" -- e.g., ShareAlike 
> > > "protects" the freedoms associated with the work a la the GPL's 
> > > copyleft), with the caveat that they are not designed explicitly 
> > > for software as are the various open source software licenses.
> > >
> > >  I am not a lawyer and cannot give you legal advice, but I don't 
> > > believe that any CC license, nor any other license I know of, 
> > > "protects" a work created with the aid of software, again 
> > > depending what you mean by "protect".  If you merely want to give 
> > > users the choice of selecting a CC license for work created in 
> > > your software, we have web and web services interfaces for doing 
> > > so, see http://creativecommons.org/technology/web-integration and 
> > > http://api.creativecommons.org.  Otherwise, you should seek the 
> > > advice of a lawyer.
> >
> >  Hi Mike,
> >  thank you for your advice. Of course I meant something like 
> > ShareAlike by "protect"..
> >  Regarding point 3: I think this is an interesting point for 
> > creative commons, because it is about something that is not yet 
> > framed really in the normal way of thinking about software. 
> > Obviously it is not possible to make users of a software force to 
> > obey rules like ShareAlike if the software is a production tool.
> >  But what if the software is an algorithmic musical score which 
> > outputs slighly varying results each time? So in a way software is 
> > now sometimes closer to what a "sample" is than to what a "tool" 
> > is. There is people who had bad experiences with publishing their 
> > code - which was, without modification, recorded and then published 
> > on albums without even mentioning the author.
> >  I think it would be very good if cc had a scheme for such works, 
> > as it would proliferate open source music. Well, just an idea.
> >  thanks again for your help,
> >  Julian
> >
> >
> > > > >   From: Julian Rohrhuber <rohrhuber AT uni-hamburg.de>
> > > > >   Date: July 27, 2005 1:28:36 AM PDT
> > > > >   To: info AT creativecommons.org
> > > > >   Subject: licence scheme for sound software and its outcome
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >   Dear Commons,
> > > > >
> > > > >   thank you very much for the great work! This is very helpful.
> > > > >
> > > > >   I would like to provide a scheme under which sound software 
> > > > > developers/artists can publish their work (source code) so that:
> > > > >
> > > > >       * the source code is protected
> > > > >       * the sound produced by this code is protected
> > > > >       * it is easy to write this licence as a plain-text 
> > > > > one-liner in  the code
> > > > >       * it is easy to add new contributors (who might have 
> > > > > changed the original code)
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >   GPL does not fulfill these needs. Maybe you know a solution?
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >   best whishes,
> > > > >   Julian Rohrhuber
> > > > >   --
--





.