Development of Creative Commons licenses

["Charles Iliya Krempeaux" <supercanadian AT gmail.com>]

Hello Greg,

On 8/28/06, Greg London <email AT greglondon.com> wrote:

> if an image or video is made copylefted by
> licensing it under the Creative Commons BY-SA
> license, then if a webpage were to embed such
> an image or video, then would it (the web page)
> become copylefted too?

As others have said: no. Because the webpage would
be a collective work, not a derived work.

> To be honest I'd prefer if both situations existed.
> I.e., if there was a Creative Commons license that
> was like the GNU GPL and if there were a Creative
> Commons license like the GNU LGPL, with respect to
> embedding.

Embedding is really aggregating. and aggregating
is nothing more than putting what could be completely
unrelated works next to each other.

Feel free to correct me if you see a problem with my reasoning. but....

This distinction you guys make between "derivative works" and "aggregates" seems quite subjective.

And, yes I know you guys have put alot of work into defining the what you call a "derivative work" and what you call a "aggregate" in legalese.  But it seems like a choice you guys made.

To me, all "aggregates" are "derivative works".

Just a note though... a copyleft license puts limits on what kinds of "derivations" will cause the copyleft to proagate.  For example, the GNU LGPL has more limits than the GNU GPL.

But I'm arguing semantics.  And getting away from the my point....

The LibraryGPL is based on derivative works,
saying that basically, the work is copyleft,
but you can link to it with proprietary works.
Linking is creating a derivative work, not
an aggregate or collective work.

I'm not sure I'd agree with that.  The GNU LGPL puts more limits (than the GNU GPL) on how copyleft can propagate through derivative works.  In other words, with the GNU LGPL, there are less types of "derivations" that would spread the copyleft (than the GNU GPL).

 

Using LGPL/GPL as a model, except applying it to
aggragates, Creative Commons Share Alike,
CC-SA is like a CollectiveGPL, meaning the work
is treated as copyleft, as are derivatives of the
work, but you can aggregate it with proprietary works.

Correct me if I'm mistaken.  But I was under the impression that CC-SA does NOT propagate, and thus is NOT copyleft.

The ability for the copyleft (or whatever) to propagate is extremely important.
 

If you say you can't even aggregate a copyleft work
with anything else, then very strange things happen,
not the least of which would mean that you couldn't
distribute linux on a CD with anything other than
GPL'ed code, you might need separate websites simply
to distribute GPL'ed works and non-GPLed works.

If you want to get really extreme, one could always
attempt to lobby for a copyleft license that requires
that the work can only be -distributed- with copylefted
works, meaning you'd have to do some creative routing
just to get the work from the server, through networks
using only copylefted code, to your desktop.

None of these restrictions would help the gift economy
project. And not having these restrictions do not expose
the gift economy project to unfair competition from
proprietary sources.

My interest is NOT in any "gift economy" experiments.

I'm interested in liberty.  I believe that the enforcement of copyright law is immoral.  I see copyleft as making the world as if copyright law did NOT exist.   As a way of kind of opt'ing out of copyright law.

I see the spreading of copyleft (in the world we live in) to be a preferred, because it undoes what copyright law forces upon me and others.

(NOTE: I am NOT trying to get into a political or philosophical argument.  Just trying to explain my point-of-view.)


 

> For my particular usage, I could see a business model
> (a way of making a living) established on copylefting
> works under a Creative Commons license like the GNU GPL,
> ... where one would take advantage of other's reluctance
> to license their own works under the same license.

That might be an advantage for you, but such a license
would be harmful to the gift economy that created the
work in the first place.

Again, I'm NOT interested in any kind of "gift economy" experiment.  (As I explained above) I'm interested in liberty.

If you think of it from the FOSS -- Free and Open Source Software -- point-of-view.  With that, there are 2 camps.  The "Free Software" camp.  And the "Open Source Software" camp.  (They often work together, but they are NOT the same.)

While the "Open Source Software" camp might be motivated in social engineering experiments.  Saying that the Open Source methodology leads to the development of better software....

The "Free Software' camp is interested in liberty.  From the "Free Software" camp's point-of-view, if it all leads to better software development practices, then great... but that's besides the point.  They do it all for reasons of liberty.  That's it.
 

I'm coming at the Creative Commons from the point-of-view of liberty (just like the "Free Software" camp).

I want copyleft licenses that help me undo what copyright forces on me and others.


Also, I believe that one can still (have a working business model and) make a living in such a situation.  (The "Free Software" world already has many success stories.)

I think we just need a Creative Commons Copyleft license with a bit stronger terms for propagating the copyleft.  (A model similar to the duo of the GNU GPL and the GNU LGPL seems good.)

See ya

-- 
    Charles Iliya Krempeaux, 
B.Sc.

    charles @ reptile.ca
    supercanadian @ gmail.com

    developer weblog: http://ChangeLog.ca/
___________________________________________________________________________
 Make Television                                
http://maketelevision.com/