Development of Creative Commons licenses

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

On Wednesday 21 June 2006 06:07 pm, White, Phil wrote:
> Hi Drew,
>
> > I think I see what you are getting at, but have you tried putting
>
> yourself
>
> > in the other party's shoes and thinking what can go wrong from their
>
> point
>
> > of view.
> >
> :) Yes, honestly, I have! In fact, that is why I actually feel strongly
>
> about this. If I were just acting as publisher, there probably wouldn't
> be a problem, because I would be interested in the site. But I have in
> the past authored official docs, and unless I'm prepared to continually
> 'chase up what my baby is doing', no-one else really considers about
> telling me - it just isn't done. Incidentally, there is also a degree of
> non-attributed plagiarism going on as well.
>
> > I do know that the right to fork is very important in Free Software.
>
> How
>
> > would your proposed system preserve this right if it would?
>
> Good question. Do I fear a fork? Not really - but we have a different
> scenario here. Take software, and you (usually) have a public website to
> co-ordinate the fork. 

How do we know this is so? We know about the forks on the public spaces, we 
know that you can modify and not distribute and keep your changes private. 
There is a cost to doing this, but there would also be a cost in the case of 
documents as well.

> Take a text document from my proposed site, fork 
> it, and it is going to end up on a private intranet. 

Why are you so sure of this? If they do, it will be harder for them to make 
use of new and improved versions down the line as is the case with code.

> If I were an 
> author, I would not like that. I currently feel that it is OK to fork a
> document and then put it elsewhere on my site, 

Why are you so concerned about it being on your site, would not any public 
web 
site serve your stated purposes?

> because it guarantees 
> access by others; but don't fork it where the original authors can't
> access it.

Like I say, you can do this to the original authors in the case of GPL 
licensed code.
>
> In short, whatever type of work we talk about, I believe that an author
> has the right to know what is done with his work (even if he might not
> approve) _if_he_so_wishes_. This is _MY_ definition of sharing (which is
> wrong, I might add). I still maintain that to take a work, modify it,
> and _DISTRIBUTE_ it to (say) 10 people _PRIVATELY_ is NOT sharing (in
> the spirit of the word), even if all the current license conditions are
> met.
>
> Which, sadly, leads me to believe that, at the moment I am stuck with
> either releasing any downloaded document under a No-Derivative clause,
> having a new copyright policy written, or changing my viewpoint - none
> of which I really want to do ;-) Perhaps I'll feel different tomorrow!
>
> Ps. I'm really sorry about the lack of threading here. You can guess
> which email client we have installed here... :(
>
> --
> Best regards,
>
> Phil.

all the best,

drew
(da idea man)
-- 
http://www.ourmedia.org/node/145261
Record a song and you might win $1,000.00
http://www.ourmedia.org/user/17145