Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

cc-licenses - Re: [cc-licenses] New Generic and ports

cc-licenses AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Development of Creative Commons licenses

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: Andres Guadamuz <a.guadamuz AT ed.ac.uk>
  • To: Discussion on the Creative Commons license drafts <cc-licenses AT lists.ibiblio.org>
  • Subject: Re: [cc-licenses] New Generic and ports
  • Date: Sat, 07 Oct 2006 14:09:05 +0100

Henri Sivonen wrote:
Considering that Free Software and Open Source has worked fine with English-only licenses, that non-Americans are routinely using the existing U.S./"Generic" CC licenses and that CC now has a "New Generic" license draft that is designed to work globally, what's the point of having ports of the 3.0 series instead of using the "New Generic" with English as the governing language everywhere?

Comparing FLOSS with CC is a problematic exercise for various reasons. While a growing number of the general public is using open source and free software, the licences are really applicable to a small minority (comparatively) of developers, SMEs and larger enterprises. These people tend to be knowledgeable, well-educated and have access to someone who can speak English and/or understand the licences. Now contrast this to the target audience of Creative Commons. The movement exists to provide an easy to understand manner to provide open content to a vast number of people. Not everybody understands English, so translation makes a lot of sense to a movement that has such a potentially large number of users.

I always use "my mother" test when thinking of target audiences. Would my mother ever be a target user of the GPL? Not in a million years. I may convince her someday to install FLOSS in her computer, but it's not likely. On the other hand, she has a digital camera and is writing a children's novel, both are subject matter for CC licences. She does not speak English, so if we don't translate the licences, she would never know about open content and free culture.

Similarly, it is easier to draft technology-specific licences that apply globally. Software licences are a good example, although there are several problems with validity in each recipient country. There is a much bigger problem for creative works and trying to apply American principles to a wide variety of works. These are just some that have given regional drafters some headaches:

- Contract formation: In most countries licences are contracts, so the draft has to accommodate local contract formation principles.
- Moral rights: software does not have moral rights in many jurisdictions. On the other hand, all creative works have moral rights, and the range of protection in this area alone is staggering.
- Drafting rules: In the UK we have a requirement by law to draft consumer contracts in user-friendly language.
- Quirky copyright implementation rules: different countries have considerably different rules on the application of things like technological protection measures (just to name one), or that have considerably different definitions for some licence elements. Drafting licences that recognise these local idiosyncrasies tend to be more likely to stand up in court.

Regards,

Andres

--
Andres Guadamuz
AHRC Research Centre for Studies in
Intellectual Property and Technology Law
Old College, South Bridge
Edinburgh EH8 9YL
Tel: 44 (0)131 6509699
Fax: 44 (0)131 6506317
a.guadamuz AT ed.ac.uk
http://technollama.blogspot.com/






Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page