Development of Creative Commons licenses

[Mia Garlick <mia AT creativecommons.org>]

heya, so allow me to try to explain the existence of the new  
generic.  the generic license has been drafted to form the same  
function as the old generic license - namely to provide a license  
option for would-be CC licensors in those jurisdictions to which CC  
does not yet have a ported license.  the difference is that the old  
generic was drafted based on US law.  this lead to criticisms by many  
along the lines of - CC is just a US-based licensing system with no  
applicability to: (a) Europe; (b) the Spanish-speaking world; (c) the  
rest of the world (take your pick, there are plenty of criticisms to  
go around).  also, it lead to people to ask, when looking at our  
worldwide page http://creativecommons.org/worldwide/ - why hasn't CC  
"ported" to the US yet? well, CC couldn't port to the US if the  
"generic" was the US license.  consequently, there was a need to  
"port" to the US and to have a real generic license.

the question then becomes - how to have a generic license if it isn't  
based on the law of a particular jurisdiction. the response to that  
seems to be - given much of copyright law in different jurisdictions  
around the world - is based on the provisions of international  
treaties, is to have the license reflect the legal terminology of  
those treaties and have the "real" generic take effect in accordance  
with the national implementation of those treaties.  this is what we  
have done. in doing so, however, we are also preparing some  
guidelines about why it is preferable for a person to choose a  
jurisdiction/"ported" license for all of the reasons that andres and  
peter have so eloquently expressed on this list over the past couple  
of days...

On Oct 8, 2006, at 2:22 PM, Henri Sivonen wrote:

> 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/
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> cc-licenses mailing list
> cc-licenses AT lists.ibiblio.org
> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-licenses