Development of Creative Commons licenses

[Terry Hancock <hancock AT anansispaceworks.com>]

Alek Tarkowski wrote:
>  I have several comments regarding the color coding badges, in part
>  based on a discussion on the same issue that ran in march on the
>  cc-icommons list.

Okay. Except, AFAICT, there is no "cc-icommons" list. I've been looking to
see if I can find it ever since Mike Linksvayer mentioned that "drafts
had been proposed" (I'd like to see them if that's so -- I have the feeling
that I'm wasting my time / duplicating effort. To a certain point that's
okay, I just did this for fun, but I'm not going to get into serious 
arguments
and negotiations over some silly drawing that will never be used ;-) ).

>  points raised there against color coding included problems that color
>  blind people might have, monochrome displays and ambiguity of the
>  scheme when a single color is presented outside of the whole
>  spectrum. basically, the buttons would have to direct everyone to an
>  image of the whole spectrum for the scheme to be clear to new users
>  of licenses / buttons.

Certainly. That's why none of the buttons should *rely* on color. Color
is just an aid.

>  personally, i don't consider blue or green to have anything to do
>  with freedom, and then there are probably cultural differences in
>  color symbolism that should be considered. and then yellow and orange
>  makes me nervous, should i really be scared of a cc-by-nc-nd license?

Yes, they should. That's the point in a nutshell.

As for the non-universality of the color psychology, this is mixed: Humans
do in fact have genetic behavioral reactions to certain colors. Particularly
red. This probably has to do with the fact that red is the color of 
blood. If
we had Vanadium-based green blood like lobsters, police cars would probably
flash green.

However, some colors are more culturally bound.

Nevertheless, the "traffic light" scheme works pretty well, because traffic
lights have the same colors pretty much everywhere on Earth (and,
generally, if you have internet, you probably have roads). Where the
assumption fails, it isn't any harder to learn the colors than to learn
the CC icons (and you still have the icons). This is just a matter of
convention.

I would regard this as a sound reason for keeping the scheme fairly
simple, but not as an objection to color-coding in general.

>  but then, when you look at the ever more common rss icon for
>  instance, does the color seem to convey any information? i'd say, no
>  - we're used to all sorts of colors on the web.

The RSS logo is orange because it is a bright color that attracts your
attention. That this has no other significance is not so important.

It also shows that conventions are conventions.

Consider that if you find a red or gren "RSS logo", you are likely to
think the color is significant, simply because it isn't the same. That's
the sort of cue we are looking for here -- something that makes
people ask the next question ("if this license isn't 'free', why not?
what does that mean?).

The point with CC license is precisely to create a differentiation in
labelling between licenses of fundamentally different types. We want
to *break* the current conceptual lumping of 'free' and 'non-free'
licenses that the use of a single "SRR" logo creates.

>  i agree that it is good to differentiate licenses - but maybe this
>  does not have to be done at button level?

I really think it does need to be at the button level. The whole point
of the buttons is instant classification. The user needs this to quickly
filter what licenses they consider acceptable.

> maybe we need really good
>  infographics describing the "freedom spectrum" of licenses? or more
>  tools like firefox extensions (a mozcc add-on?) that could in some
>  smart way convey such information?

I suppose you're talking about license documentation on the CC website.
That's a good idea -- it'll reach the truly curious. It will do nothing to
promote the distinctions however. Individual works will be just as
ambiguous. I will still have to dig to find the correct license information.
That will be a nuisance for serious CC/free users and a near total no-hitter
on the disambiguation goal.

A Mozilla plug-in is a nice idea, of course, for Mozilla users. Much as I
love Mozilla, however, lock-in is always a bad idea, and as things stand
it will only hit a small sample of the web. This is almost deceptive,
because it will selectively target free software users -- it's a move 
designed
to create the false impression of disambiguation among those who most
want it, without actually achieving it for those who most need it.

>  regarding the descriptions at the bottom, there might be a potential
>  difficulty with translating them. firstly, in polish for instance
>  'free as in freedom' and 'free as in speech' does not sound
>  particularly well as a short slogan.

Good point, but then how snappy is "Some rights reserved" in Polish?
(is this what "Pewne prawa zastrzeżone" literally means?).

Either a new translation is needed, or something looser. Perhaps

"Free like speech" (Does the expression "free speech" as a formula 
appear in Polish?)

Or perhaps it's even simpler than that. Does the ambiguity in question 
even occur
in Polish? In French, for example, I'm sure that simple "LIBRE" would be 
adequate
labeling (or perhaps "ARTS LIBRE"). Perhaps something similar would work in
Polish? (Sorry, but I'm unfamiliar with Polish languages, so I can't 
really guess what
would work).

> and 'your rights removed'
>  translates into a string so long that the button would have to be at
>  least two times wider!

Perhaps it could be wrapped onto a second line. Or something else
substituted. But of course, that's from the EULA graphic, which is
unlikely to be promoted by CC anyway -- it was just an idea from an
earlier post on the list looking for ways to classify existing licenses on
works. Likewise, there's no reason for CC to carry an "all rights reserved"
logo.

Anyone, if you're localizing the text, it's not unreasonable to use slightly
different expressions if they make the same point.

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