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: Mia Garlick <mia AT creativecommons.org>
  • To: Discussion on the Creative Commons license drafts <cc-licenses AT lists.ibiblio.org>
  • Subject: Re: [cc-licenses] New Generic and ports
  • Date: Sun, 8 Oct 2006 14:32:57 -0700

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





Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page