Development of Creative Commons licenses

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

On Monday 26 June 2006 10:17 am, Greg London wrote:
> drew
>
> >See this link:
> >http://www.gnu.org/press/2002-03-19-Affero.html
> >There can be new licenses that are copyleft.
>
> Yes, and Phil's project isn't copyleft,
> isn't Free, and isn't Sharing.
>
> The AGPL is copyleft. Phil's project isn't.

Greg,

My point was that you can come up with new copyleft licenses and perhaps new 
copyleft like schemes.

I fully understand your points and agree in spirit. I do not see you 
adressing 
mine though.

Forget what Phil originally proposed for a second and look at the mods I 
suggested. How is it that if a project adopted the ideas I suggested that 
contributors would not end up with pretty much copyleft protection? How would 
someone in Phil's position have any advantages? How would a member of the 
public fail to have the rights to make modified copies? (Again, isn't this 
for policy docs or something like that? Not art, right?)

The only thing I see that couldn't be achieved is the right to make private 
copies which is not surprising since the whole song and dance is designed 
specifically to remove this right.

Look, if I am mistaken and the mods I suggested would behave other than I 
imagine, please point out the problem. I am all ears. If they would behave 
like I imagine, but three are still major problems, point them out, I have 
tried to.

>
> The AGPL adds a restriction so that no one
> can maintain an advantage over everyone else
> by restricting access to the source code.
> The AGPL requires that source code for
> hosted software, software that wouldn't normally
> invoke the GPL's definition of "distribution",
> therefore wouldn't normally invoke the GPL's
> requirement for "supplying source code", that
> source code for hosted software must be made
> available to everyone.
>
> While the AGPL is intended to make sure that
> someone hosting software doesn't use the lack
> of GPL-based distribution to withold the source
> code and maintain an advantage over everyone
> else, Phil's proposal is exactly to make himself
> the central authority for the works and maintain
> his advantage over the public with regard to
> the works.
>
> The AGPL makes sure that everyone can modify
> hosted software. 

I know what the Affero license is for.

> Phil's proposal is to make sure 
> only Phil can modify his hosted documents.

I don't think so. From what I grasp, he is cool with anyone forking and 
making 
their own version "on wiki" and then taking them "off wiki" in a BY-ND like 
fashion. He just doesn't want forked versions existing in the wild that are 
not also "on-wiki." (That is what I understand his desires to be.)

So, if he commits as a part of the copyright grant or assignment process to 
also not go off wiki as anything other than BY-ND, everyone will be on equal 
footing.

Anyone can fork "on-wiki"

Anyone can then take that forked doc "off wiki" as BY-ND and print, sell, 
distribute, whatever.

Also as a part of the grant or assignment process, he commits to "content 
escrow" with a trusted third party. (Internet archive? Would they be 
interested in such docs?)

Also as a part of the grant or assignment process, he commits to the right of 
any party to set up a duplicate wiki under the same terms should his go "off 
net" (or that the docs go BY-SA should his go "off-net")

This would protect the project should the originator go awol for some reason.

So, everyone has the right to make derivatives. Everyone has the right to 
sell 
originals or any derivatives. No one has any special rights of place. 
Everyone is protected from the project's demise.

What am I missing/overlooking? Would this not work? (I am not asking if it is 
worth doing. Like I say, personally I think just make the whole thing BY-SA 
and be done with it.)

>
> Greg London

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