Development of Creative Commons licenses

[Terry Hancock <hancock AT anansispaceworks.com>]

drew Roberts wrote:
>  do you have any input for me as to why I get no comments on the
>  possibile benefits of licensing the "instance" of a work and all
>  derivatives BY-Sa as opposed to the "work" which is the current
>  situation?
>
>  Am I not wording this in a way that is clear?

I know it confused me.

I was under the impression that this was already possible. For example,
the "original work" of a music composition might be an Ardour project
file, but the "instance" would be, say, an OGG file generated from it.

It is already common practice to publish only the OGG file, and I was
under the impression that By-SA already allows this (it's debatable
whether the GPL does -- it certainly wouldn't if the original source
release included the Ardour project as "source").

OR, are you trying to draw a distinction between digitally identical
copies?  If the latter, than I can get behind the idea, as it's impossible
to enforce (or detect infringement).  I think that having to prove
the provenance of a file is not a reasonable constraint to put on
a receiver of the work.

OR, are you trying to make a special exception for the non-derived
work?  In which case you have to define what is a trivial change (i.e.
did I make a derivative of your story by adding a space character
at the end?  How about if I added the words "THE END"?  Etc.).

> Is it just a foolish
>  thought and people cannot be bothered to respond? I personally think
>  it reduces some useful income possibilities for people who want to
>  release their works under a Free license but would like to earn some
>  money along the way.

Cheers,
Terry

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