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: Terry Hancock <hancock 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: Fri, 19 May 2006 01:11:06 +0000

Mike Linksvayer wrote:
On Thu, 2006-05-18 at 15:42 +0000, Terry Hancock wrote:
> Mike Linksvayer wrote:
>> There should be no need to add additional modules to the licenses
>> themselves to effect delayed licensing. Just say that the
>> license is only offered after

'It's so simple to implement that you should do it in the license grant'

> Yet, the "license grant mechanism" (as above) requires this to be
> quite specific. It is of course, the most flexible mechanism, but
> that's precisely its problem -- it doesn't provide much guidance
> as a result. I think elevating it to license module status would
> help with that.

I doubt it. Even if it did the added complexity in the licenses, for
which the normal use case is not delayed, would not be worthwhile.

But now, 'it's so complicated a team of lawyers can't incorporate it
into the CC licenses, even though they are currently doing a review
of the license, and preparing new versions anyway'.

Come on, it can't be both too simple *and* too complex to implement! ;-D

I do think I probably goofed by identifying this as "Founder's Copyright",
it's obviously only a distant cousin -- they have a similar intent.

Maybe "Sunset" is a better term to use.

> *My* point was to have something start out with NC/ND clauses and
> then lose them (but keep By or SA) after a specified time-release.
> By choosing to bless a particular delayed-release scheme by making
> it into a module, CC could promote that scheme, and encourage a
> particular "best practice".

Remove "-nc-nd" in the URL above then.

Misses the fundamental point. I want one CC license to apply during
the proprietary period, and a different one to apply after.

If I were to consider the complete universe of possible combinations,
this would be complex, but in fact, there's only a few really useful
cases of interest (e.g. making a non-free CC license migrate to
a free one in time).

Maybe this could be done without touching the legalcode, e.g., after
selecting a restrictive license, a user could be asked if they'd
like to release under a less restrictive license in N years. If so
they're given the appropriate notice.

I like the idea of having the request in the licensing wizard, yes.

But why are you so hestitant about "touching the legal
code"? This thread is about defining the VERSION 3.0 of the CC
licenses. Hence, *all* of the legal code will be "touched".

I'm responding to Mia Garlick's call for discussion on
the CC v3 licenses.

IMHO, the NC and to a lesser degree ND modules are highly
controversial as currently implemented. I, as a free-license advocate,
want to see something better offered to artists who currently choose
these options. I would like to see CCv3 licenses address this issue
by providing some alternative strategies for resolving the compatibility
issues. A sunset clause is one way to do that.

I would really prefer if the standard NC and ND clauses were to
incorporate such a sunset in version 3. However, since version 2.5
licenses will automatically upgrade to version 3, artists who chose
NC2.5 licenses would likely see that as a betrayal of their trust in
the Creative Commons, so I can see that's a no-go.

OTOH, if the v3 license didn't automatically include this, then it
could be added in some other way -- having the licensing wizard
offer it is a good start. I would personally like to see it list a reasonable
sunset value as a default (but allow it to be removed).


Terry Hancock (hancock AT
Anansi Spaceworks

Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page