Development of Creative Commons licenses

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

On Wednesday 24 May 2006 10:59 pm, Greg London wrote:
> > I would argue that the benefits of a time-release are
> > similar to those gained by sharealike licenses.  But
> > they work for different business models, which may
> > incorporated better, more optimized coverage of artists'
> > endeavors.
>
> ShareAlike isn't a business model. It's a model,
> but it isn't based on business. The business
> model is the Cathedral. ShareAlike is the Bazaar.

I am not sure this jibes with ESR's take on the cahtedral and the bazaar. 
IIRC, he sees each as a development model. Two different ways of making the 
product. That you have a business model built around the final creation is a 
somewhat different matter.
>
> There is a cost to contribute to any project.
> To overcome this cost, the Cathedral finds a few
> people to pay to work fulltime on the project.

Going along with your "take" - depending on the project, they may also have 
to 
pay fees to license material that they want to include in the project.
>
> The Bazaar works by lowering the cost to contribute
> so that many people can donate small amounts of time.
> The incentive to contribute is not money but that the
> project is intending to create something that is in
> alignment with what the contributer wants, and the
> project itself has a plausible chance for success.

That may or may not be, for instance, I have needed to put an application in 
place at a client several years ago. I found a gpl program that nearly fit 
the bill. I charged the client for my time in making the mods, put it in 
place, and released the improved code back to the world. The client was 
happy. There was an improved tool available to the world.

One thing I think we have all been ignoring in these discussions so far is 
the 
"tool" aspect WRT business models. (From my reading, think the apache 
project.)

That is, you create something together that you all will use as a tool in 
your 
money making endeavours and not as a tool that you will sell to make money.
>
> Those are the basic models.
>
> The Sunset license doesn't change these models,
> it is a Cathedral model: people get paid directly
> for their work for some number of years, and then
> the work is released to a Gift Economy license.
>
> You're trying to exchange a shorter copyright term
> for free advertising for the author. Compensate them
> for giving up some period of time for their work in
> the future, in exchange for free advertising, and
> possibly more sales, now.

Not just advertising, but promotion, and also, possibly, a "lower cost of 
materials."
>
> I get that it can work, but the thing is I'm not
> sure it's exothermic. A project like wikipedia
> allows contributions to be so small that someone
> could put a couple minutes into correcting some
> typos, and those couple minutes would directly
> add to the project. And because the project is
> something many people support (information wants
> to be free), the almost zero cost to contribute
> plus non-monetary compensation of contributing to
> something you support and like and want, that
> the reaction becomes exothermic. It is self-sustaining.

As I outlined in my ardour and copyleft music example elsewhere. It may be 
possible, at least in some situations, to get down to the small contribution 
range.
>
> I get the sunset license could work, compensating
> creators with free advertising and possible sales
> now, in exchange for giving up possible sales in
> the future, but I don't see it becoming a wide
> spread license that becomes self-sustaining in a
> project. A seven-year delay is a substantial
> de-amplifier in the feedback circuit. Someone
> puts a work under a Sunset license, and no one
> can build off that work for 7 years. The reaction
> isn't self-sustaining.

Seven is a good long time, three is more doable and we will not really know 
until it is tried.
>
> But then, I don't think its the license that is
> the spark for free projects. I think great projects
> are the spark, and CC licenses are the enabling
> tool that allow them to succeed. The Sunset license
> would be great for eventually having works meta-tagged
> all over the internet, and having some sort of search
> tool so you can find them. But I don't see that as
> an exothermic project.

I some ways you may be talking a chicken and egg situation though. It may be 
that the idea for the project is generated from an understanding of the 
possibilities offered by the license perhaps in conjunction of a similar 
project using the same license.
>
> It could work, but I just don't see it catching fire.
>
> Just my opinion though.

We are certainly all entitled to our own (and perhaps to those of others?) 
but 
untill it has been tried. (Perhaps several times as timing also has something 
to do with these things. Marketing too for that matter.)

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