Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

cc-licenses - Re: [cc-licenses] Subject: Re: Version 3.0 - List Discussion Responses

cc-licenses AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Development of Creative Commons licenses

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: Mia Garlick <mia AT creativecommons.org>
  • To: Discussion on the Creative Commons license drafts <cc-licenses AT lists.ibiblio.org>
  • Subject: Re: [cc-licenses] Subject: Re: Version 3.0 - List Discussion Responses
  • Date: Sat, 23 Sep 2006 15:56:10 -0700

it's always good to toy with new ideas about how to improve the CC licenses.

i think there are three reasons to not consider trying to implement this within the next month in which we are hoping to finalize version 3.0. one substantive, one practical and one procedural.

the substantive one is that, on taking the temperature of the "CC community" it, for the most part, seems to agree that putting restrictions on the ability of downstream licenses to place TPM on content in such a way as to thwart the intent and effect of the licenses is a bad thing.

the practical consideration is that allowing people to mix and match their license terms would add more complexity to the license selection process. when one considers that there has, to date, been very little in terms of a demonstrated community need for allowing CC content to be TPMed at the discretion of the licensee, the additional complexity seems unwarranted.

the procedural consideration is that we are so far down the 3.0 process so far, that to try to introduce a completely new idea such as this would delay getting to version 3.0 by about another 12 months...

On Sep 23, 2006, at 2:33 PM, Eric Garner wrote:

Why not break the non-TPA language out of the ND, NC, SA, etc. licenses and make it a completely separate option called "N-TPA" or something like that? This would get the non-TPA language out of the way for Debian's review of all the other licensing options, wouldn't it? It would also make application of the non-TPA language a completely deliberate act on the part of the licensor, thus removing any doubt. Just an idea.
Eric
_______________________________________________
cc-licenses mailing list
cc-licenses AT lists.ibiblio.org
http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-licenses





Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page