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: Sun, 28 May 2006 22:00:40 -0400

On Sunday 28 May 2006 05:35 am, Greg London wrote:
> > Greg London wrote:
> >> It isn't allowing legal details to run the show, it's asking whether
> >> the project in question can be built by the Bazaar model or not. If
> >> it can, then CC-SA or any copyleft license will, for the most part,
> >> do.
> >>
> >> If the project does not fit the Bazaar model, and part of the goal is
> >> a free project, then the problem is not going ot be solved by the
> >> license, it will be solved by figuring out how to chunk the project
> >> so it becomes bazaar friendly.
> >
> > IMHO, you're succombing to the absolutist fallacy. You want a
> > project to fit neatly in category A or Not-A. In real life, the
> > boundaries are fuzzy.
> Patrick Nielsen Hayden, who blogs over at Making Light, had
> this great saying that he got from Chip Delany
> :: endless arguments about edge cases leave us with less
> :: understanding of the center, rather than more.
> I am not an absolutist. I'm simply trying to talk about
> the couple of "centers" out there, rather than get bogged
> down arguing endlessly about the hundreds of edges that
> bound them. The centers are cathedral and bazaar.
> gift economy and market economy. Copyleft and All Rights Reserved.

The thing is some of us (I think, if not, I) do not buy into the copyleft
world is a gift economy idea. It is no wonder then that we buck heads from
time to time.

You also called someone's take on NC as political. IIRC, RMS thinks the
copyleft GPL thing he has going on is a matter of ethics.

> There are some other interesting nodes around CC-NC and
> CC-ND and a couple other points, but, if you want to
> talk about all teh specific exceptions and crossovers,
> I am aware of them, its just that trying to talk about
> every specific instance and exception seems to tend to
> arguments over their exact placement. yes, there are
> gift economies started by one or two individuals who
> put chunks of money into it. And yes, there are people
> who write and sell stuff All Rights Reserved who also
> contribute one of their works to CC-BY. and vice versa,
> and every other permutation.
> >> The projects that people choose NC for are individual projects.
> >> People use NC for free advertising, free samples, free word of mouth,
> >> with the intent that it eventually lead to sales that puts money in
> >> their pockets.
> >
> > Except that with the existing NC they are getting a certain amount
> > of negativity from the community as well. I think it's a bit broken in
> > that respect.
> Ah, see, this IS political. Because "negativity" is your
> subjective view of CC-NC. CC-NC is objectively a win-win
> license. authors give up some of their rights that the
> public benefits from. The public may then buy some of the
> authors works, which the author benefits from. win-win.

But, even if it is political, it is a potential customer and a potential
collaborator that they are turning off. There is a cost to this that they
might want to weigh up.
> That you don't LIKE it, is your subjectivness coming into it.
> It isn't enough for you, apparently. So you don't like the
> license and you don't like people who use it.

Speaking for myself, I don't like it, I like many of the people well enough.
don't like it any worse than all rights reserved and I like many of those
people well enough as well.
> But it really IS win-win. Authors are giving up some of
> their legally granted rights when they use CC-NC. The
> public benefits by that. And the author benefits too.

If I thought that these were benefits that the public could safely use, it
would bother me a whole lot less.
> >> And you're asking them to adopt the sunset license in exchange for
> >> what? Sure it will benefit the commons and the fan base, but what can
> >> the people who did the work Cathedral style expect to get out of it?

Well, if you have seen my posts, I have suggested they run experiments and
what happens.

Why did the grateful Dead allow taping?
> >
> > More money from people who do care about the commons. More
> > personal satisfaction for the artist in many cases.
> >
> >> The sunset license doesn't solve any problem for the cathedral
> >> person. The project is still unchunkable. They're still working on
> >> creating something in small, dedicated teams, or as individuals.
> >> They're looking to hopefully recover some of the time and energy they
> >> invested in creating that work by selling it when it's done. And
> >> you're asking them to give up the rights to their work after 3 or 7
> >> years.
> >
> > Actually, the term might be longer or shorter, depending on the
> > type of work.
> >
> >> But it doesn't benefit them in any way. It benefits you and the
> >> commons. It isn't win-win.

How can you categorically state that it doesn't benefit them in any way. That
is an absolute type of statement.
> >
> > I disagree.
> >
> >> CC-NC is win-win.
> >
> > This I really disagree with: CC-NC is fundamentally broken --
> > it only legalizes what fans think they have a right to do anyway,
> > and fails to create any strong sense of community. It doesn't
> > feed the commons, so the commons doesn't feed it.
> Fan fiction is against copyright, regardless of what fans think.
> Enforcement of copyright against fan-fiction is left entirely
> to the author, however, since the police don't go around
> arresting people for fan fiction. Authors have to send cease and
> desist letters and sue to force someone to take down their fan
> fiction, and most authors know that such action is biting the
> hand that feed them, so they don't pursue it.
> CC-NC is a way to legally allow fan-fiction in a fundamentally
> important way: it promises upfront that the author will not
> try to shut down noncommercial uses, rather than having fans
> put energy into creating some work, only to have the author
> come in after, decide they don't like it, and force them to
> shut it down.
> As for "feeding the commons", no, CC-NC doesn't do that.
> But, as I try to keep saying, THE LICENSE DOESN"T FIX IT.

This is your contention, obviously, some remain unconvinced. (That said, I am
not for license proliferation.)
> If you want to feed the commons, find a piece of the commons
> that needs feeding, find out why Bazaar methods won't work,
> FIX THAT, and then find contributers who will feed the commons
> in a bazaar mode.

I have given some sugestions as relates to music, you don't seem to care to
comment on them. I still think they have some merit and am working in that
area. We shall see.
> You are trying to fix a problem with yet another license
> when the problem isn't in the license, it's in the project.
> The project is not bazaar-compatible for some reason or another.
> Fix THAT.
> > It also doesn't feed it's own distribution networks,
> > Too many things count as "commercial use".
> > And legal distribution, especially, becomes nearly impossible.
> These are more complaints about CC-NC which tell me
> you'd like to change CC-NC to allow for more commercial uses,
> which, in the end, is simply more license twiddling,
> rather than fixing whatever is keeping the works from
> being produced Bazaar style.
> > The time-release to copyleft strategy is a tried-and-true technique
> > with software, and limited terms have been built into the US
> > copyright system from the beginning, so this doesn't seem like
> > that revolutionary of an idea to me.
> But there isn't a GPL-Sunset license, is there?
> my understanding of people or companies who do
> time-release-to-copyleft simply start out with
> all-rights-reserved and switch the older version
> to GNU-GPL at some point. They don't have to
> commit the work to a sunset license up front,
> they just switch the older version to GNU-GPL
> when the new version comes out.


Since the GPL is RMS's baby and you are not gonna see him tweaking it to
for non-Free software, you should know better than to suggest that. Creative
Commons on the otherhand is willing to associate with non-Free licenses and
so it is not such a stretch.
> Which, I think, is why sunsetting won't work nearly
> as well in non-software areas. software has releases,
> it has versions. each new release adds features and
> fixes bugs (hopefully). So there is a benefit for those
> who want to pay to get the latest version versus use
> the free version. And the free version acts as a loss
> leader for the pay version. sunsetting is a cathedral
> model, it just puts the out of date stuff into the commons.

Which is why I also think a dollar value sunset may have some legs.
> But that doesn't translate to music or a book. There aren't
> "versions" per se with bugs in the old versions fixed
> in the new version. How does that work for a book?
> Have the floss version be full of typoes and choppy
> text, and have the pay version be copyedited?

Sure, why not. I could put my drafts out BY-SA and then put an NC with sunset
on the final print version. (This would not be a bazaar deal according to
your analogy, but that is not my deal in any case.)
> it doesn't translate. Sunsetting software works
> for the people creating the software. The commons
> gets free works that are older versions, and
> those who need the bug fixes will pay for the latest
> version. The nature of the medium of software
> makes sunsetting make sense.
> The medium of writing and music doesn't lend itself
> to that so easily. There are sites such are Red versus Blue
> that release video shorts created from machinima,
> and subscribers can view the stuff when it comes out
> for 10 bucks a month, and non-subscribers can view it
> a week or two later at a lower resolution. But that
> doesn't require a CC-Subscription license.

Joke of the day subscription. Get it now for $5.00 per month, Next month it
copyleft and you can get it for no cost.
> If sunsetting or subscribing or whatever business
> model works for a site, it can be done with the
> basic licenses and simply having the site do the
> switch when they are ready or have them set up
> the subscription stuff up front. having a license
> doesn't add anything other than more license
> complexity.

Sure, but with the built in guarantee of a sunset license, it can attract
additional customers/patrons/whatever.

all the best,

Record a song and you might win $1,000.00

Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page