Development of Creative Commons licenses

[Rob Myers <rob AT robmyers.org>]

Discussion on the Creative Commons license drafts wrote:

> The issue with the By-SA licence in this situation, is that the 
> organization is literally cutting off their oxygen supply.  If they 
> wanted to do that, they would simply use the Public Domain Licence.

In terms of cross-licensing, translation, and quoting < 1001 verses, 
BY-SA is not cutting off the oxygen supply, it is ensuring that the air 
 circulates around the room.

It doesn't guarantee royalties, but nor does NC.

NC doesn't ensure that you make money from your work, it simply prevents 
other people from doing so. Unless they are providing services or 
equipment used to distribute your work (iPods, photocopiers or internet 
services). It also works against you making money from end users of your 
own work, as you have already released your own work for free.

With BY-SA you can at least exploit downstream derivative work. This may 
be more protection than NC-SA, as people will understand that they have 
to give back.

But neither license is a good fit for a borderline viable royalty-based 
business. The business would need to switch to a different revenue model.

- Rob.