Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

cc-licenses - Re: [cc-licenses] Color Coding Badges (Drawing)

cc-licenses AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Development of Creative Commons licenses

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: Terry Hancock <hancock AT anansispaceworks.com>
  • To: Discussion on the Creative Commons license drafts <cc-licenses AT lists.ibiblio.org>
  • Subject: Re: [cc-licenses] Color Coding Badges (Drawing)
  • Date: Fri, 09 Jun 2006 00:33:03 +0000

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





Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page