Development of Creative Commons licenses

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

On Monday 06 March 2006 04:57 am, rob AT robmyers.org wrote:
> Quoting Greg London <email AT greglondon.com>:
> > "Free to leave or truly commit" is coercion. In game-theory terms,
> > you want to perform a strategic maneuvar that would prevent everyone
> > else from making a move they *would* like to make, but because of
> > your move, they can no longer do so. That is the epitome of coercion.
>
> Possibly I am misunderstanding the scope of the game as usual, but
> surely anyone
> who doesn't want to play that game can start a new one, so I'm not sure it
> is coercion in game theory terms. For example there are enough
> alternatives to the
> GPL that if I do not wish to embrace the ethical wonders of Free
> Software but I
> still want to use a copyleft license there are a number of options open to
> me (including writing my own license).
>
> That said, the *language* of "or truly commit" *is* coercive.
>
> > What you've been saying is this:
> >
> > "non-commercial-derivatives should be allowed by any and
> > all Creative Commons licenses, even the NoDerivatives license."
>
> This sounds like a kind of formalized Fair Use. Fair Use is a matter of
> intent not action, so providing a list or limit of the actions once can
> take under fair use, or (as in this case) providing a licence that is an
> alternative to Fair Use and could be used to affect it, is not a good idea
> IMHO.

Actually, I think it would be a good idea for certain aspects of fair use to 
be formalized in law as there is a chilling effect associated with the way 
things stand. However, that is the domain of the citizens and the lawmakers.
>
> - Rob.

all the best,

drew
-- 
http://www.ourmedia.org/node/145261
Record a song and you might win $1,000.00
http://www.ourmedia.org/user/17145