Development of Creative Commons licenses

[rob AT robmyers.org]

Quoting Stefan Tiedje <Stefan-Tiedje AT addcom.de>:

> In art its much more likely to have only one generation. I don't even
> know one musical piece which is the arrangment of an arrangement.

Any folk music. And I've seen more than one painting of the cruxifiction in my
time. :-)

> If
> you're going to arrange some music you'd always take the original to
> start with. This question has no practical meaning beside programming
> and maybe DJing (But even as a DJ you would just pass compensation to
> your sources, and those could pass on if necessary).

There have been cases of accidental inclusion of multi-generational samples in
music ("Ride On Time" springs to mind).

> For the case of BY-SA-NC-FCR its already possible, as the NC license
> does not cover the commercial use. I could just give it away as BY-SA-NC
> and additionally independently as FCR. But the sole FCR is missing the
> ease of use, because its not wide spread or well known enough.

Lessig says that CC are working on a compensation system called cc.com:

http://creativecommons.org/weblog/entry/5704

> The Case of BY-SA-FCE is more complicated, as the license itself would
> need a clause which requires to look at the FC-description as part of
> the license which must not be removed, though there is no legal
> difference in practice in comparison to a pure BY-SA.

A legal license is not the place to "expect" "fairness". :-)

> In most cases I could think of BY-SA as the ideal license if I just
> could attach something to it which must not affect any legal issues of
> the original BY-SA licenes, but is like the obligation to name the
> author (BY) to also express the authors other thoughts.

I'm sorry I don't understand this at all.

> This could be called (BY+). Its would be like BY, but with the
> obligation to add a text, which is not part of the work, but part of the
> license.

Do you mean like an FDL invariant section?

> [...] And its also always the question about the freedom of whom.

Not on the license discuss list it's not. ;-)

- Rob.