Development of Creative Commons licenses

[Discussion on the Creative Commons license drafts <cc-licenses AT lists.ibiblio.org>]

Henri wrote:

> I don't really know the details, but my understanding has been that  
> the KJV is in the Public Domain outside the U.K. (at least outside  

Pre-WIPO, that would have been the case.  Post-WIPO, there is an 
obligation on the part of each signatory to honour the copyright on 
publications in the other signatories.   Whether or not the Crown will 
seek to enforce its copyright outside of the British Commonwealth is a 
currently unanswerable question.

> The conclusion I draw is that they should be wanting a Bible  
> translation and hymns that are Free as in Free Software--not NC. In  

+1

> gathering that don't follow the format of a service. I assume there's  
> a lot of "don't ask, don't tell" going on. (There are virtually no PD  

Probably true throughout the world.

>>enough people to take off
> Do you have any guess whether this is due to lack of interest or due  
> to a perception of unfairness (due to lack of Free as in Free  

That is hard to say.

* I'm not sure that libre / copyleft has touched the radar of the 
contributors to the various religious projects. [ For software, e-Sword 
( gratis, not libre ) has as large, if not larger user base as the Sword 
project ( GNU GPL ). <The Sword Project doesn't publicize the number of 
downloads. e-Sword periodically announces the number of downloads. IIRC, 
they hit 4 million downloads last year.><Commercial Bible Study Program 
creators use e-Sword, rather than The Sword Project as a bargaining chip 
when dealing with royalties.>]
* The JW Bible Study program < YRR > includes in its EULA a clause that 
prohibits it from being distributed to individuals who are not JWs.
(That did not prevent somebody from offering the ISO image over the 
internet. <I guess they didn't like the "your rights removed" EULA>)
* The projects that potentially have the most to gain from using a 
copyleft licence, typically face the more critical issue of finding 
people qualified to translate material into English, or other modern 
language, from the Koine Greek / Aramaic / Aramaic / Hieroglyphics / 
Ancient Chinese / Sanskrit / Pali / other original language.
* Projects that collect material, typically only include public domain 
material.  [Sacred-Texts.com is probably the best known religious 
orientated example. It does include some "orphaned material" from the 
days of _FIDO Net_, _PODS_, and maybe even _The Source_.]
* The commentaries for Christian material usually have a very specific 
theological POV. Whilst people who do not adhere to that theological POV 
can contribute, they are on notice that their material might be deleted, 
purely on doctrinal grounds.
* Doctrinal issues appear to be more significant that gratis/libre 
issues. [At least one collaborative project has forked because of 
doctrinal issues. Both forks later collapsed.]
* About the only consistent pattern, is that if there is no organization 
behind a collaborative project, it won't attract enough people to 
sustain itself when the founder departs from the scene.

> To me, it seems that NC is such a lost opportunity for Free Culture (as in 
> Free Software)
> that it is a shame if CC-by-sa isn't even tried first.

CC-BY-NC-SA is perceptually less scarier that CC-BY-SA.

> > The Red Cross can use it in a course, but the Salvation Army can not use it, 
> > even if teaching the
> > same course, using the same instructor.]
> This should ring major alarm bells that NC is a bug in CC!

People are learning what a commons is. For an organization that 
understands the concept of "gratis", the concept of "libre" is unknown.

Did Creative Commons err in creating the NC licence?  Possibly.  People 
who understand "gratis", but not "libre" would have looked at said "What 
none of these licences are 'gratis'?"
[Creative commons did err in not including a definition of both 
"commercial", and "non-commercial" in the licence.]

> > > I find it strange that MIT is pushing NC and all the ambiguity it  
> > For MIT, NC makes perfect sense.
> It doesn't. They don't get the network benefits from combining their  
> works and Free as in Free Software copylefted works produced by others.

I didn't think of it yesterday, but "Moral Rights" is probably more of 
an issue with them, that Collaborative Rights.  ND covers Moral Rights 
better than NC, though. OTOH, brand name/image isn't covered by ND, but 
is by NC.

> As far as branding goes, NC in more harmful than ARR to Free Culture  
> (as in Free Software) and a true creative commons, because it allows  
> people to get the branding benefits of CC without actually benefiting  
> Free Culture (as in Free Software) or a creative commons.

> So is NC in your opinion diabolical?

No.  "Diabolical" refers to the fact that your local school district, 
can't use this material, unless they pay MIT a royalty. Your local 
private school might be able to use the material, without paying 
royalties. This simply increases the gulf between public education, and 
private education.

> > Something that addresses the specific needs and concerns of those  
> > organizations.
> That would make the situation only worse by putting CC deeper into  
> the non-free boutique license quagmire instead of repositioning CC as  

CC is trying to offer licences that are:
* gratis ( NC-SA / NC-ND )
* libre ( SA )
* gratis and libre ( BY-SA / BY-NC-SA / Developing Nations )

ND doesn't fit into that breakdown.
I'm not sure how the Sampling licence fits into that mix. [This is a 
licence selected by default, and not because it is the best for the 
proposed use.]

xan

jonathon