Development of Creative Commons licenses

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

On Wednesday 24 May 2006 05:53 pm, Terry Hancock wrote:
> Greg London wrote:
> >  Founders's isn't being adopted in any significant numbers. I think
> >  any sort of term-limit-non-commercial license would fare even worse.
>
> I don't think the term-limit principle is the reason for the failure of
> Founder's.
>
> I think the reasons are:
>
> 1) It's not a license at all, but a copyright purchasing contract
> arrangement.
>
> 2) It's too complicated, and easy to misunderstand.
>
> 3) It requires agent-level trust in the Creative Commons organization.
>
> 4) It requires an exchange of money -- transactional cost.
>
> 5) It is fundamentally incompatible with the other CC license modules.
>
> 6) It is not marketed in any appealing way.
>
> As such, it is wide-open to FUD, and it's not a big surprise to me that it
> failed so badly. Ultimately, it failed because it *isn't* a license module.
>
> Or so it would seem to me.

On top of that, it is not going to appeal to anyone who favours a copyleft 
style like BY-SA, so, it seems to me it would only be favoured by those who 
want a BY-NC to go to a BY in the stated time period.

One of the benefits of a copyleft is that as long as the big boys keep 
pushing 
copyright extensions, there is a growing pool of works that are in some major 
ways off-limits to them but not to others unless they decide to play copyleft 
games. (Which might be a good thing.)

The FC would just put something in the public domain for them to raid. So 
again, the main appeal would be to those who like BY and who might want a 
period of all rights reserved for themselves. (Of course, I may be missing 
motivations which can certainly happen in these discussions.)
>
> Cheers,
> Terry

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