Development of Creative Commons licenses

[Alexander Genaud <alexgenaud AT gmail.com>]

Hej Daniel,

Thanks for your response. I do not believe public domain and a
copyright to everyone are quite the same thing.

> The only disadvantage of "public domain" is that someone can extend it
> and make a non-open derivative. In other words, I can grab your work,
> make changes to it, and give it to people but under closed terms.

Agreed. However, while I can redistribute a public domain work under
my own copyright, I must retain the copyright of a work owned by
everyone. In other words, I believe, no one individual can release
changes under closed terms if the recipient is also a copyright
holder.

The only disadvantage (to the open source/copyleft world) that I see
is that only the final product of a derivative must be released. There
is no requirement to release the original or source. Rather than a
problem, this might be considered a simple convenience.

Cheers,
Alex

2005/10/10, Daniel Carrera <daniel.carrera AT zmsl.com>:
> Alexander Genaud wrote:
> > Dear protectors of the commons,
> >
> > I am curious if one may grant a copyright to others, specifically
> > everyone, and what implications that might have.
> >
> > (c) 2005 All of humanity
>
> You probably want "public domain".
>
> > Are there any immediate disadvantages or legal issues inherit in such
> > a copyright?
>
> The only disadvantage of "public domain" is that someone can extend it
> and make a non-open derivative. In other words, I can grab your work,
> make changes to it, and give it to people but under closed terms.
>
> Cheers,
> Daniel.
> --
>       /\/`) http://oooauthors.org
>      /\/_/
>     /\/_/   No trees were harmed in the generation of
>     \/_/    this email. However, a significant number
>     /       of electros were severely inconvenienced.
>
>
>


--
http://cph.blogsome.com
--
CCC7 D19D D107 F079 2F3D BF97 8443 DB5A 6DB8 9CE1
--