Development of Creative Commons licenses

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

The problem I see with ideas like this is that they will "gum up the works" 
and that will not necessarily be a good thing. Ted Nelson was looking to 
solve this payment problem years ago with project Xanadu.

I think we solve it by ignroing it. (For now, I do have one idea that I am 
working on, actually, the work is all but stopped now, that may help, but it 
remains to be seen.)

What I don't want, is something which would require an accountant and a 
lawyer 
to work on a project.

Imagine Fair Compensation trouble if you were doing something like knoppix 
and 
each contributor specified fair use instead of what they do now.

Not a pretty thought. Too much innovative stuff will go unmade in my view.

all the best,

drew
---
http://www.ourmedia.org/node/85937
Tings: My BY-SA NaNoWriMo 2005 novel.

On Thursday 17 November 2005 07:08 am, Stefan Tiedje wrote:
> spamm thiss wrote:
> > Hi everyone,
> >
> > We'd like to be able to extend the
> > creative commons-attribution-sharealike-noncommercial license to cover
> > noncommercial organizations that have a turnover above a certain
> > amount.
> >
> > This /seems/ to be a trivial extension to the license, but would be
> > extremely useful for our organization (an NGO)
> >
> > How does one go about extending the license? Is it even possible? And
> > are there any (legal) risks associated with doing this?
>
> I am thinking all the time about something like that. The main advantage
> for cc licenses is the ease of use. A noncommercial license is easy for
> noncommercial use, but doesn't cover commercial use. That means each and
> every commercial user needs to get in contact to clarify the
> compensation. If you just clarify the commercial use with an addition,
> this would be no problem, but it would not be standardized, and thus the
> commercial user still needs to get in contact and read and understand
> all the legal stuff.
> My suggestion would be to create something like a rule, which I would
> call "Fair Compensation" (could have an icon like the other cc parts)
> Then this could be just added to a non commercial license, that means
> "Fair Compensation required" or could be added to license which allows
> commercial use and the would mean "Fair Compensation encouraged" (more
> like in shareware).
> The "required" version would be no problem at the moment, the
> "encouraged" version would require a change of that cc-license, as its
> important that its part of the whole license, and that should be an
> unchangeble part of the license.
>
> A standard for the definition of "Fair Compensation" should be found.
> My Idea would be that the aim is, to let the user decide about the
> amount of compensation, but have clear rules how to find that amount.
> I think it should be clear that the aim is never to sue anybody...
>
> Just as inspirational idea how "Fair Compensation" rules could be
> outlined, I added this to my elswise GPLed St.ools (I might want to
> change the license to cc in the future):
>
> FAIR COMPENSATION OUTLINED:
>
> The author of the work did put a lot of effort into the work and does
> need some kind of compensation. Without that, support and further
> development or new works will not be possible. To support my work I ask
> those who use the work commercialy for a fair compensation. This can be
> money or their own works or any other kind of feedback. The work remains
> free. It is absolutely fine to make millions of dollars with it as long
> as its reconsilable with your conscience. I will not justify what you
> think the work is worth. But I will give an hint what a fair
> compensation might be.
>
> For example: You put the work into a collection of 99 other works on a
> CD-ROM. Lets say you sold 1000 pieces and after considering all costs
> and your own effort (which should be compensated as well) remains a
> profit of 1000 Dollars. Appropriate could be for example 10% of the part
> of the program (1% 0f 1000 $ = 10 $ and 10% of those 10 $ would be 1 $).
> In this case what would make sense is to send me a copy of your collection.
>
> Another example: You use my library to programm a customized software
> for one of your clients. You charge 50$ per hour and the time you could
> save by the use of my library is approximatly 3 hours, you could say
> thanks by dividing it by 3 (50 $ cheaper for the client, 50 $ for you
> and 50 $ for me) or compare it to the prize of a comparable commercial
> library and give me part or all of that. Or any other model you can
> think of :-)
>
> Yet another example: You sell a CD with a special distribution of my
> algorithmic music programs. In this case as you are also using my name
> for selling it, my part could be in the range of 30%-50% of the profit
> (300 $ - 500 $ per 1000 $ profit)
>
> Or you play my music on the radio, then it would be fair to pay the same
> as you pay for others, which would be the normal fee that is usually
> defined by the intellectual property rights associations like BMI, Gema,
> SACEM...
>
> I will promise to continue the support and the development of my work as
> long as the compensation will be in the range of a normal income for the
> amount of work I put in.
> It does make sense to consider your own income as appropriate. (I hope a
> lot of millionares will like it.)
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> cc-licenses mailing list
> cc-licenses AT lists.ibiblio.org
> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-licenses

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