Development of Creative Commons licenses

["Greg London" <email AT greglondon.com>]

>> This would not be considered a Free license.
>
> I used the word 'freedom', rather than 'Free'.

The only difference I know of in capitalization
is that "free" sometimes refer to zero price
whereas "Free" refers to freedom to use the work
under a copyleft or PD license.

I've never heard someone claim a difference
between "Free" and "freedom". As far as I know,
"freedom" always meant freedom, as in right
to use the work freely. If you wish to say that
your site is offering the work "free" as in
zero cost, then you should probably use the
phrase "zero cost" rather than "freedom".


>> You are talking about a market economy license
>> where the license is designed to benefit you
>> over everyone else.
>> Which means you soak up
>> all the contributions from people, have them sign
>> copyright over to you, and then when they've made
>> the work even better, you have the sole right to sell
>> it to MajorCorp and leave your contributers in the dust.
>
> This is the second time you have besmirched my character.

You should re-read that paragraph.
I say nothing of your character.
I state what the license allows.
If you use CC-ND for the work
and if you require contributers assign
copyright to you, then that approach
allows you to receive contributions
from others, then turn around and
sell a non-CC-ND license to MajorCorp.

That is a fact of the license you
chose and the agreement you require
your contributers to consent to.

Whether you do that or not is a
different matter. But you have set
up the situation to allow it.

That you took it as besmirching your
character might make someone ponder
"methinks he doth protest too much",
but I'll defer that to some other time.


> If you have mystical insight into my motivations,

I said nothing of your precious motivations,
I told you exactly what the license you
chose and the agreement you require contributions
to be submitted under creates, what that situation creates.

>> If not, don't kid yourself that CC-ND and having
>> contributers assign copyright to you is anything
>> resembling Free or Sharing. Or at least, don't
>> try to kid me.
>
> Never have I tried to kid you - you should my posts more carefully. And,
> respectfully, I am educated well enough to understand the difference
> between 'freedom' and 'Freedom', thank you very much.

Whether you were kidding or not,
you seem to have attempted to redefine what
"freedom" and  "sharing" mean here:
https://lists.ibiblio.org/sympa/arc/cc-licenses/2006-June/003757.html

:: And the problem revolves around that
:: definition of 'freedom', and (and this
:: is important) making sure the results
:: remain shared.

Yyou wish to redefine "sharing"
to mean that anyone who modifies the work
is required to notify you of the change.

That isn't "sharing" in any Free/Libre/OpenSource
definition of the concept of sharing. In fact,
I point out that the idea was proposed for
software license some years ago and was shot down
specifically because it wasn't Free. If it ain't
Free, then it ain't Sharing. And if you need
confirmation, look at the CC-ShareAlike license
and see if there is any "notification of any
modification" clause.

So I am not picking nits, nor am I besmirching
your character, nor have I divined your motivations.

You are trying to redefine freedom and sharing
into something that it isn't in the FLOSS community.
You are talking about a market economy license, CC-ND,
which is, at most, free as in "no cost", but certainly
has nothing to do with either freedom or Freedom, nor
has it anything to with with sharing. You are giving
people a work with conditions that maintain you
at an advantage over everyone else. Whether you intend
to exercise that advantage, I have no clue, nor do
I really care. However, contributers will likely
notice your advantage and wonder why you maintain it.
If you wish to respond with "trust me", that's your
option. If you wish to commit to Freedom and Sharing,
then use a license that is Free or Shares.

However, don't get bent out of shape when I describe
your scenario in plain terms, focusing solely on
what actions the situation allows, regardless of
motivation or character.

If you have a work that is CC-NC and you require
contributers assign copyright to you, then your
choice in license is a market economy license,
and your contributer agreement means you will
have the right to re-license the work to your
own benefit. That is the facts of the situation.



-- 
Bounty Hunters: Metaphors for Fair IP laws
http://www.greglondon.com/bountyhunters/