Development of Creative Commons licenses

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

On Friday 09 June 2006 10:56 pm, Terry Hancock wrote:
> 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.

Here is a link to what I was trying to do:

http://www.ourmedia.org/node/42417

Basically, at the same time I was giving away a low resolution "version" on 
ourmedia, I was also giving the same "version" away on lulu as well as 
selling higher resolution "versions" on lulu. There was a statement that the 
higher resolution "versions" would be "set free" at a certain sales level.

So, someone pointed out that since I was licensing the "work" and not the 
"version" that all someone would have to do is by one copy of the best 
resolution and they could use it under the BY-Sa license I had applied to the 
low resolution "version" - is that a better explanation of the situation?
>
> 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").

I am only talking all original works here.

The issue is not if I can release only the ogg or even sterao wav file under 
BY-SA. The issue is whether I can release those under BY-SA while selling the 
ardour file and having that under BY-ND or ARR for a time. You probably could 
in this instance as there is probably enough going on in the final mixdown 
and mastering to make the stereo file a seperate "work" from the ardour 
project, but I am not sure of even that.
>
> 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.

Not between digital identical copies, no. Between digital copies of different 
resolutions in the case of picture of say between mp3 or ogg files at 
different bitrates.
>
> 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.).

I hope I have cleared up my idea enough to be clearly understood. If I need 
to 
try again, let me know. (If so, more questions would help.)
>
>  > 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

Thanks.

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