Development of Creative Commons licenses

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

On Sunday 08 October 2006 11:01 pm, Terry Hancock wrote:
> drew Roberts wrote:
> >  As big a bug as NC is, I think ND is a bigger one. Exactly what, from
> >  a creative comons point of view, can one do with an ND work that you
> >  can't do with an all rights reserved work. (I am not saying that I
> >  don't prefer ND works or even NC-ND works to "ARR" works, just asking
> >  what commons benefit they give?)
>
> I think ND is fine.  Unlike NC it is completely unambiguous in what it
> requires and also in what the effect will be.  IMHO, there is no
> possibility that an author using ND will be confused about the
> possibility of "network effects" or "collaborative leverage" that are
> often the reasons for making a work "free" (i.e. By or By-SA).

You missed my point (I think) as I did point out that ND is indeed preferable 
to ARR. And if "Creative Commons" was instead called "Better Copyright 
Options" I would have nothing to say about ND in that context while I would 
still complain about NC for the reasons you do. In that context I also would 
not say anything about NC if the confusion could be cleared up.

This is not the Better Copyright Options list though, it is the Creative 
Commons list and I don't see how an ND works is actually a part of any 
creative commons.
>
> I think that NC, on the other hand, creates enormous confusion, because
> people mean so many different things when they say "non-commercial"
> (ranging from "you can't charge for the work itself" to "you can't
> benefit in any financial way from use of the work" to "you can only use
> the work if you are not a commercial entity", etc).
>
> But ND, while clearly "non-free", doesn't cause any confusion. Everybody
> knows what it allows: you can download, you can share, but you can't
> change it.  The typos must remain unfixed!
>
> Seriously, though ND is an excellent choice of license for a political
> position statement, for example, because changes might misrepresent your
> position. The GFDL has elaborate language to deal with "endorsements"
> and so forth, but ND makes it pretty simple.

Yes, true, but when you choose it, you are not putting your work in any 
commons.
>
> To directly answer your question, BTW, you can't redistribute an ARR
> work, but you can with ND. In fact, if one hasn't also used NC, you may
> even redistribute commercially.

So, if you did understand me and I am mistaken in that, you woule be saying 
that the fact that someone can redistribute a work makes it a part of the 
commons. (Commercially or non-commercially.) If that is what you are saying, 
I am not sure I buy that. If you are saying that, would you care to discuss 
it further.
>
> Cheers,
> Terry

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!