Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

cc-licenses - Re: [cc-licenses] Founders as a module? was Re: Getting to Version 3.0

cc-licenses AT

Subject: Development of Creative Commons licenses

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: drew Roberts <zotz AT>
  • To: Discussion on the Creative Commons license drafts <cc-licenses AT>
  • Subject: Re: [cc-licenses] Founders as a module? was Re: Getting to Version 3.0
  • Date: Thu, 18 May 2006 17:44:20 -0400

On Thursday 18 May 2006 12:02 pm, Terry Hancock wrote:
> drew Roberts wrote:
> >This idea could have some legs. I have asked about timed and event release
> >licenses in the past with no feedback. (iirc) I think I might be
> > interested in a total revenue release model as well as a time release
> > model.
> A community buy-out license, representing what NaN did with
> Blender? Yeah, that's not a bad idea.
> The community would like it, because it frees the most popular
> content -- the song *everyone* wants to listen to, for example,
> yet it makes it clear that the artist will profit from it. For that
> matter, it even gives the community a direct incentive to see
> the artists succeed if they like their work.
> It's less desireable for the "long tail", of course.
> Both clauses are actually parametric, of course (they take
> arguments, if you will: duration or quantity of income), which is
> not something CC currently has a mechanism to support. The
> F1, F3, F7, F14 concept is a kludge to get around the fact that
> you can't specify the number better.
> Of course, if you are focused on the recording industry conceptualizations,
> there's the "gold" / "platinum" labels (like record albums). I forget
> what the quantities are, but they mean some specific number of
> units sold. That's possibly better than a money quantity (also
> avoids region-coding, currency systems, and a slew of other
> headaches).
> Obvious module names, though: Au, Pt. ;-)

A couple of thoughts, while a units sold sounds simpler, it does nothing for
someone who lives in a high cost of living country and is popular in a low
cost of living country.

So you we need three. Time, Units, Money. Pick any one, two, or three and
either is satisfied, the work moves on to the next license. No real reason,
other than simplicity, that there could not be more than one hop between the
license a work starts with and where it ends up.
> (Okay, my scientific education is showing, I admit it).
> And of course, F14-Pt should mean it expires when either condition
> is met.
> Alternatively, the "parametric clause" concept might be fit into the
> CC scheme, so that instead of seven modules (e.g. F1, F3, F7, F14,
> Ag, Au, Pt) you have just two (FL, #$) and even more flexibility. It
> doesn't create a lot of legal problems, because these are terms that
> can be neatly isolated from qualitative license conflicts (I think).
> It's also interesting, because it would open the door to some alternatives
> that have been suggested, such as implementations of Marshall Van
> Alstyne and Geoffrey Parker's "Optimal Licensing" models.
> (Not certain I want that, but it's innovation, anyway).
> Cheers,
> Terry

all the best,

Record a song and you might win $1,000.00

Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page