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: Fri, 19 May 2006 17:50:25 -0400

On Friday 19 May 2006 04:03 pm, Rob Myers wrote:
> 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.

As with most things, there are tradeoffs. If someone were to use a time
release with a short period to release date, I may consider thuse using NC or
ND as still playing nice and give their works some attention and even some
promotional efforts. As it is, I try to completely ignore such works. They
have no value for me in reaching the goals I am shooting for. This has the
effect of CC really being all of these seperage sand boxes that different
people choose to play in which somehow doesn't jibe with my mental picture of
a commons. Whatever.
> - Rob.

all the best,

Record a song and you might win $1,000.00

Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page