Development of Creative Commons licenses

["Takemoto" <timtak AT nihonbunka.com>]

Dear CC licencers

I posted before about licences for text. Now I am wondering about the 
meaning of "share alike," and how alikeness can be redefined. 

My starting point is that I believe that the Open Source software 
(e.g. GNU)  licences are excellent, and very effective, as many do.

But in the open source software community of which I am a member, still 
many people seem to think that the GNU is a sort of utopia, a caring, 
sharing, age of aquarius, when in fact, this licence is just very good 
business practice. 

When someone releases software on a GNU licence holding copyright 
of the URL from which they are distributing the software, they are onto 
a good thing.

If, as part of the licence (and this is the same for CC attributionlicences) 
the software contains that copyrighted URL then all subsequent users are 
only one click away from the source: the place where the latest version 
can be downloaded, the place to get bugfixes, the nexus of the community,
 and support.

This means that the owner of the URL (and its copyright) reaps a reward 
for releasing their work. Users are going to keep coming back. 

However, while software is always used on computers, and most computers
are connected to the internet, texts (books, articles, etc.) are often 
distributed 
on paper. 

Users of texts (readers) are not one click away from the source. They
often have no reason to return to 'the source'. 

This means that when a person releases their text, then they often
do not reap the same rewards. 

I speak from a certain amount of experience. I belong to an open
source community where I recieve software, and contribute and 
recieve support. It works very well. The developers control the means
of distribution, and (I think) it is profitable for them. The system
works very well. 

At the same time, on the same community, there is a text based
resource sharing space, which almost no one contribues to. 

At first sight, this seems strange. There are tens of thousands of
people using the open source software, but very very few people 
sharing content (the files that that software uses.)  

I am convinced that his has very little to do with levels of generosity, 
or 'time for people to get used to the concept'. It has a lot to do with 
the fact that there are not the same benefits for text creators to share,
as there are for software developers to share. 

So, how do we replicate the success of the GNU licence?

I suggested an "unbound licence" in the past. I think that was a mistake. 
It is good that others bind the text that one produces into a book. 
That makes the content more valuable to them.

The important point is the distribution and community *network*. 
Does the network become dispersed, shattered? Or does the network 
have a center, a nexus, and thus cohesion? When there is a network that 
encourages cohesion, then creators are rewarded for their contributions, 
by the subsequent cooperation and creation of others.

How can this be achieved in a cc licence on text?

The "Atribution Share Alike" licence seems to come the closest.

But it is not clear to me what the meaning of "share alike" is.
How "alike" does the sharing have to be? I guess that the the 
similarity, the "alike-ness" only refers to having the same licence.

I don't think that this is enough, in the world of text, to ensure the 
sort of postive cohesion achieved by the GNU in the world of 
software. 

Hence

"Attribution Share HERE alike"
or
"Share HERE alike"

might work. By that I mean that all all derivative works must be
shared at the site from where they were downloaded. 

Is there any licence like this? Are there any plans to chance "share 
alike" in a similar way to that in which "attribution" changed? 

At first "attribution" only meant the text. Now we must attribute to the
URL. Similarly, "share alike" means only comprising the same text, but 
is there any chance it may be extended to mean "at the same URL."

I think that CC licences are going to change the way that people
do business. 

But I don't think that we are quite there yet.

Timothy