Development of Creative Commons licenses

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

On Saturday 07 October 2006 09:09 am, Andres Guadamuz wrote:
> 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.

While I can understand this, can someone talk to the issue of a long train of 
derivative works with the various generations being released under different 
county specific versions of the "same" license?
>
> Regards,
>
> Andres

all the best,

drew
-- 
(da idea man)
National Novel Writing Month
http://www.nanowrimo.org/index.php
Join me and write a novel in 30 days! Dont delay!