Development of Creative Commons licenses

[Ŭalabio‽ <Walabio AT MacOSX.COM>]

        2006-03T01:26:09Z, "Greg London" <Email AT Greglondon.Com>:

> > 	Basically, I believe that at the heart of all CC-Licenses, should  
> > be these freedoms:

> >         0.      -       The right to share the work at least noncomercially..
> >         1.      -       The right to read the work.
> >         2.      -       The right to modify the work at least noncomercially.


> > 	I would like to submit these ideas about inviolable rights which  
> > all CC-Licenses must uphold to Creative Commons.  ?How do I do that?

> 	Well, this is the "Licenses" list, so you've already done it.  I  
> don't think you'll get _any_ support though. As I said, I believe  
> that NC-ND is literally the *most popular* CC license being used by  
> people. People want it. And Creative Commons is about trying to  
> create the sort of licenses that people want, while trying to shoot  
> for some semblance of organization and compatibility, etc.

	Most people want all rights reserved.  What is popular is not always  
right and what is right is not always popular.  This is the  
missionstatement of Creative Commons:

        “Some Rights Reserved”:  Building a Layer of Reasonable Copyright

	CC-BY-NC-ND is not reasonable.  If fans like the the universe the  
author creates so much that they fill in the blanks with  
noncommercial fanfiction, then the author should be pleased that  
people love the work so much.  If a stupid asshole of an author sues  
fans over noncommercial fanfiction, the author should not be  
surprised if the sued fans stop buying the stories — the author can  
always get a job for minimum wage unclogging sewers.

	Those authors are only using CC-BY-NC-ND because Creative Commons is  
trendy.  They should either commit to a real license like CC-BY-NC or  
CC-BY-NC-SA or just go with all rights reserved.

> 	Creative Commons isn't really in the business of coercing people  
> to only use certain licenses the way someone like Richard Stallman  
> demands a license be GNU-GPL or GNU-FDL and that's it.

	¿Who said anything about coercing people?  Anyone who uses CC-BY-NC- 
ND is only a fairweather Johnson with no real commitment to the  
ideals of Creative Commons.  They are free to leave or truly commit.

> 	CC writes licenses for Gift Economies and for Market Economies.   
> CC does not have a "manifesto" like Richard Stallman does, banging  
> tables demanding that people only use certain licenses to achieve  
> the result they want.

	¿Why not have a constitution?  A constitution protections against  
absolute corruption.  As an example, a constitution has stopped the  
fascists in my country from grabbing absolute power.  Due to the  
voter-verifiable movement the fascists loose the ability to fix  
elections — we have made so much progress that the evil Walden “the  
electionfixer” O’Dell quit.  The fascists because of the voter- 
verifiable movement are likely to loose one of the legislative bodies  
this year.  If we did not have a constitution, the fascists would  
have absolute power and my country would be a fascistic theocracy at  
war against all of the mideast instead of of country. with people  
like you and I up against a wall, facing a firing squad.

> 	CC basically creates licenses that people want to use the way the  
> people want to use them.  The only real caveat is that it give up  
> "some" rights.  One other basic limitation is that CC doesn't want  
> to split hairs to the point where there are hundreds of licenses,  
> all slightly incompatible with each other.

	Having the ND not apply to noncommercial works would make the  
license more compatible with each other.  Any work licensed as CC-BY- 
NC or CC-BY-NC-SA could incorporate CC-BY-ND material just as it does  
CC-BY.

> 	But, you can make the suggestion, and this is the place to make  
> it, so there you go. But as I said, CC did some census a while back  
> and found the most popular CC license being used was CC-NC-ND.

	Popularity is not the best way to decide what is popular — slavery  
was very popular once and still is in some places.  At any rate CC-BY- 
ND is not the most popular.

> 	The thing is that the people who used CC-NC-ND would NOT use any  
> other license, so if you demanded they drop NoDerivatives, then  
> they would probably drop the CC license completely and they'd  
> either go back to "all rights reserved" or some other organization  
> would write a non-commercial-no-derivatives license and it wouldn't  
> be creative commons.

	¡Good riddance to bad rubbish!  They are not committed to the  
movement anyway.  As for them using other licenses from other  
organizations, that will cause no compatibility issues because CC-BY- 
NC-ND is not compatible with any license including itself.

> 	But, once again, you can make whatever license request you wish  
> right here on this list. But I wouldn't hold your breath for it to  
> happen.

	I shall do so.  I want to get the wording just right so I shall  
sleep on it and start writing tomorrow.  I have decided one thing  
however:

	CC-BY-ND-SA confuse people.  By default, in a universe where ND  
becomes NC for noncommercial works, people would not have to do a  
thing to effectively dual license a work as CC-BY-ND and CC-BY-NC  
because ND becomes NC nor noncommercial works  but if the want the  
noncommercial work to be sharealike it is easier to understand it al  
dual-licensed as CC-BY-ND and CC-BY-NC-SA.  People are less likely to  
get confused.

	In a few days I shall contribute a constitutional amendment under a  
subject line like CC-Constitutional Amendment or the like to the list.

>         Greg

        Walabio