Development of Creative Commons licenses

["Benj. Mako Hill" <mako AT atdot.cc>]

<quote who="drew Roberts" date="Mon, Nov 27, 2006 at 05:12:26PM -0500">
> First, we would need to be clear that from Debian's point of view, you
> are really only interested in BY and BY-SA creators in the first
> place.

I am not speaking on behalf of the Debian project. I've publicly stated
that I think that the current draft text is free and acceptable -- if
not ideal and uncontroversial -- as far as Debian is concerned.

I'm arguing for parallel distribution because I've thought long and hard
about this (as part of the Debian's consideration of the license, the
CC/Debian committee, and the 3.0 process and discussion) and am
convinced that is both fully in line with our principles and the right
tactical choice.

My sense is that my arguments for PD also extend to BY-NC, BY-NC-SA,
BY-ND, and BY-NC-ND licenses. I'll admit that I have not thought about
them quite as much because the only CC licenses I use for my own work
are BY an BY-SA so they tend to be at the front of my mind.

> I can tell you one thing. As for BY-SA creators, I don't know how many
> of us there are. It certainly feels lonely around here. Most seem to
> love NC and ND in their licenses.

Absolutely. This is why Erik Moeller and I started the free cultural
works definitions to help foster some normative discourse that might
push people toward more free works. If you haven't seen it, you can find
it at: http://freedomdefined.org

You might be pleased and amused to notice that the definition there
*explicitly* mentions that anti-DRM clauses like the CC one are free.
However, just because I think they are free doesn't mean I think they
are the correct tactical choice (the BSD advertising clause is a great
example from the world of software).

Regards,
Mako

-- 
Benjamin Mako Hill
mako AT atdot.cc
http://mako.cc/

Creativity can be a social contribution, but only in so
far as society is free to use the results. --RMS