Development of Creative Commons licenses

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

On Tuesday 10 January 2006 04:58 pm, Stefan Tiedje wrote:
> Christian Fredrik Kalager Schaller wrote:
> > I think that the non-commercial option is the biggest mistake CC ever
> > made, it is just to wide reaching and greyzone. Free and Open Source
> > software never did this differentiation and I think its was the smartest
> > decision ever.
>
> I think that the multiple options including nc is the smartest part of
> cc. 

Indeed, and this is one of the things that makes the world such an 
interesting 
place.

> I could agree that the licenses without these restrictions would 
> make more sense in certain (and for sure in your) areas, but its just an
> option, and there are a lot of works which do benefit from being
> licensed different than with by-sa (especially those with nd).
> If it would not exist as part of cc, it would exist at other places but
> less profoundly backed up by lawers who understand what they do. 

I don't mean to be negative as I do like what is going on (in a certain very 
important sense) but I am not sure being backed up by those lawyers is all it 
needs to be. They certainly haven't seemed to be able or willing to shed 
light on the NC confusion.

> These 
> options made cc to what it is today. 

This is probably true and if the copyleft like BY-SA is what I think it is, 
it 
may actually be a benefit having the other options to attract people who then 
may experiment with BY-SA. Indeed, it may just by that my thought that the 
other options will delay the BY-SA commons, they may in fact hasten it as 
people try and are bitten by the BUGS I percieve in NC and ND. BY is cool 
except that it can easily become "All Rights Reserved."

> Without these options I would not 
> know anything about cc licenses and would not listen to your arguments
> for keeping nc out of the license.

See above. So, you may very well be right not just for you but for many. I 
remain unconvinced and so make these arguments from time to time, but I am 
not trying to force anyone's hand.

I do urge everyone to experiment with some of their own work under a BY-SA 
license for a couple of years at least though.
>
> The problem is not that nc is bad, the problem is, that there is no
> foolproof concept to make the wish of the copyright holder clear. 

I disagree. The problem with NC is that it is bad becuase it is so UNCLEAR 
what is and is not permitted. This makes it dangerous. Especially with the 
criminal aspects of copyright in many places these days which carry jail time 
for violators and with the hugh statutory penalties possible which could 
easily bankrupt someone.

I think it is bad for other reasons as well, but that is another matter.

> Thats 
> why I was suggesting some "honory" rules for fair compensation, which
> could be attached to a by-sa license to make clear: If my work helped
> you to pay your bills, please do help me to pay my bills.

I don't know if rules is the right word, but perhaps it would make sense to 
include an optional payment clause.

I think the problems come with putting even a moral obligation on people when 
you are several generations into a work that draws upon several other works 
also several generations in. The bookkeeping is going to overwhelm 
individuals of good intentions.

For more thought on this look into what Ted Nelson was attempting with 
Project 
Xanadu.

> I think thats a fair expectation, its just the question if I want to
> force the user of my work legaly (then I choose nc), or if I just want
> to encourage her to do so.
> I also hope that the latter works better, but I have no proof for it.
>
> Stefan

all the best,

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