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: Rob Myers <rob 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 21:03:41 +0100

On 19 May 2006, at 20:21, Greg London wrote:

My question, to reiterate, is 'What's the difference between a
"NON-copyleft free license" (e.g. MIT, BSD, CC-By) and "Public Domain"?'

The only practical difference that I know of occurs for licenses
that have accumulative requirements.

Yes attribution. That, and a copyright is retained, so the work could be relicensed proprietary (but not exclusively).

The CC-Wiki license fixes the cululative effect of the CC-BY,
because it allows attribution to be handed over to a single
website or similar organization.

CC-Wiki became the 2.5 group attribution clause. The Wiki badge just redirects to BY-SA 2.5 .

IANAL but this clashes with the moral right of attribution and so IMO really should not be used outside the US, or in international projects. I personally think the solution is FSF-style assignment, not attribution hacks.

The only other difference I can think of relates to Moral Rights.
I'm not so familiar with all the details of Moral Rights,
but my understanding is that they cannot be licensed away.

They can be waived in Canada and the UK but elsewhere they are inalienable. The CC-UK licences (for Scotland and for England & Wales) explicitly retains the right of integrity, I think the CC-CA license leaves the option open for the licensor.

I do not, personally, think that Founders should be a module. It is a very elegant solution, but we just need one case of someone deciding they don't want their work to become BY after 5 years for this to be a PR (and ethical) disaster. Founders has already been used for FUD.

Possibly CC could work with a third party to do a time-release scheme, but I don't think CC should do it themselves, and I do not think time-release is a good idea. We need less uncertainty and conditions in copyright, not more.

- Rob.

Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page