Development of Creative Commons licenses

[Terry Hancock <hancock AT anansispaceworks.com>]

Erik Moeller wrote:
>  http://freecontentdefinition.org/

Very nice effort, BTW. I covered your startup in the
current LinuxUser & Developer (#62, coincidentally, I
received your PR right before I had to send off the
news, so I snuck it in at the last minute).

>  The split between BSD-style/PD and copyleft is of course a political
>  one, and whatever choice you make therefore has political
>  implications. It's your (and Creative Commons') call whether you want
>  to highlight that split. But this is very much needed, and I fully
>  support it.

Well, I prefer for there to be a distinction, because it matters to some
people. But I feel that blue or green are both strongly associated with
freedom, so I don't feel it's a problem.

I have also wondered if I should add some of the other licenses: GFDL,
FAL, MIT, BSD, etc., by following the GPL/LGPL examples.

At some level this is just because I think the blue logos look really cool,
and it combines my favorite color with my favorite licenses. ;-)

Likewise, an argument could be made that both NC and ND should be
yellow, instead of having an orange at all, but I thought it's nice to
have some distinction (but yellow and orange have very similar psychological
impact).  Personally, I find ND less threatening than NC, because I don't
feel like it's "pretending to be free" -- the artist surely knows they 
aren't
promoting any kind of commons with an ND work.  But the ND is both
less 'free' and less 'commons-friendly' than NC, IMHO.

Of course, CC is going to do what they like -- I don't have any kind of
official status. I just have Inkscape and a desire to play. ;-)

>  I like the "Your rights removed" button. ;-) (What's the "1" for?) I
>  don't see why there is a "CC" logo in the "All rights reserved"
>  button, though. Shouldn't that be a traditional (C) logo?

The restrictions shown were meant to be:

"Eye" -- this EULA requires you to give up privacy rights (e.g. subject
            to audit, sends spy packets to source, etc)

"1"     -- single CPU limitations and other things that prevent you from
            having backup copies, etc.  Can't burn songs to CD, etc.

"padlock" -- DRM'd material, 'no reverse-engineering' clause

"no mouth" -- restricts freedom of speech: you agree not to publish
             benchmarks or negative comments about the company, etc.

(all four are in somebody's EULA -- I'm sure there's half-dozen more
that people have seen)

The CC logo on "all rights reserved" is probably a mistake. I wasn't
sure what to do with that, or how it would be used.  A regular
copyright mark is probably a good idea, yes.

Cheers,
Terry

--
Terry Hancock (hancock AT AnansiSpaceworks.com)
Anansi Spaceworks http://www.AnansiSpaceworks.com