Development of Creative Commons licenses

[Henri Sivonen <hsivonen AT iki.fi>]

On Oct 8, 2006, at 12:55, Andres Guadamuz wrote:

> Henri Sivonen wrote:
> > Do you mean CC by "movement"? What are the stated goals other than
> > exploring the "Some Rights Reserved" spectrum (without any baseline
> > definition like the Free Software Definition)?
>
> There is a baseline definition for CC.

Where can I read it? AFAIK, there used to be a baseline, but  
Sampling, Founders' Copyright and, I gather, the developing world  
stuff violate the old baseline.

> > Does CC believe that the approach that FSF has taken with GPLv3,
> > GFDLv2 and GSFDL is legally flawed?
>
> Sigh! Again, I do not speak for CC, so CC does not "believe" anything,
> these are my personal opinions.

I don't claim that you do. However, I am interested in CC's opinion  
on the legal validity of the approach taken by FSF, because it is CC  
who is being different.

> > If CC believes that the approach FSF has taken is flawed, what's the
> > point of the "New Generic" license (which is distinct from the U.S.
> > license)?
>
> I have to return to my previous response. I think that comparing  
> the GPL
> and CC is an exercise akin to comparing apples and oranges. I have
> already given an opinion that there are marked differences in both
> licences with regards to moral rights, target audiences and subject  
> matter.

OK, let's forget the GPL.

GSFDL will compete with CC-by-sa 3.0 for network effects in terms of  
the pool of compatible works. Is the GSFDL draft legally flawed?

> > If CC believes that the approach FSF has taken is not flawed, doesn't
> > it follow that CC is creating complexity for no good reason?
>
> See above. What the FSF does is their own concern. CC has chosen a
> separate route. IMO, I like CC's route better.

But CC has chosen to create a "New Generic" set of licenses.

What's the point of "New Generic" if CC doesn't believe in GSFDL- 
style licenses that are designed to be globally applicable?

> IMO, one
> of the greatest achievements of the global porting effort is that I
> believe that it is the largest comparative licence drafting  
> exercise in
> legal history.

What I don't understand is why all this experience is not unified  
into "New Generic" which could then be linguistically translated-- 
which is what the FSF attempts to do with GSFDL.

So to rephrase my questions:
If CC believes that global licenses like the GSFDL draft are legally  
flawed, why is CC making the "New Generic" set of licenses? If CC  
believes that "New Generic" will work, doesn't that leave a need for  
linguistic translations but remove the need for jurisdiction-specific  
ports? And on the other hand, if CC believes that jurisdiction- 
specific changes are needed, doesn't it mean that even CC itself  
doesn't believe in "New Generic"?

--
Henri Sivonen
hsivonen AT iki.fi
http://hsivonen.iki.fi/