Development of Creative Commons licenses

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

Overall, let me say that I think you may be missing something. While bound 
paper may indeed be the preferred method for reading, it is certainly not the 
best for research, cross reference, quoting, re-using, etc. I think that the 
current powers in the publishing field have no made works available freely 
online under licenses t hat permit re-use and so we have no real idea as yet 
what benefits we may find when hugh amounts of material are available under 
the equivalent licenses to those "Free Software" licenses. It may be, that 
when such pools of content exist, your worries will evaporate.

On Sunday 16 October 2005 10:02 am, Takemoto wrote:
> Consider the old adage, "build a better mouse trap, and the world will
> beat a path to your door." As many recognise, this is just not true.
>
> Economics tells us that both production *and distribution* is vital.
>
> Open source software *seems* only to relate to the means of
> production.
>
> But in this internet age, where every one knows that software can be
> downloaded, it is precisely because the means of distribution is
> safeguarded that open source works.
>
> Open source software writers are engaged essentially in a swap: they
> give up rights to the production, in exchange for possesion of the means
> of distribution. 

As I pointed out in an earlier post, they do not possess the means of 
distribution. We all do. Any of us who want to at least. It is the users that 
choose which site is the most important.

> On the one hand they give everything away (the means 
> of production), but on the other, they get everything back (the means
> of distribution).

If your thinking hinges on this, I think you need to reconsider things.
>
> Sometimes people talk about the "kudos" of open sorce, but it not
> just kudos at all. The Internet is a world without distance, as soon
> as someone has to quote a URL. Kudos means business.
>
> I suggest therefore that for us text writers to join the Open Source
> wave, all we need is a "Strict Share Alike Licence."
>
> Even the word "Strict" is not necessarily needed. All we need to say
> is use the SAME licence, dammit. By the same we do not mean,
> "the same terms," but the same, same, same.

So, when the CC site goes away, all bets are off?

Off topic: has anyone ever seen or thought of a license that would allow 
derivatives, but not the making of exact copies?
>
> That means that derivative works have to be on the net. That means
> that the means of distribution can be secured by the creator.
>
> Or does it? Could text users put derivative works on some internet
> backwater, and avoid sharing the means of distribution?
>
> On the stats of my web site I seem to be able to tell where vistors
> have come from. Similarly, on the CC site, there should be a list of
> visitors and where they have come from. If CC has that data then
> google might be allowed to share it too.
>
> In other words, if a site has a CC licence, and there is a chance that
> someone will press on the link, in that case will the google-bots,
> the spiders get there, to ensure the continuity of the web?
>
> Timothy
>
Make some CC BY-SA content. Put it out on the net. Give it some time. We will 
find ways to make profits from our own and other's copylefted content.

all the best,

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