Development of Creative Commons licenses

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

James wrote:

> Ultimately, if some creators would like a stringent anti-DRM clause and 
> others would prefer anti-DRM with parallel distribution, I think this is 
> an entirely appropriate split to make in the licenses. 

+1

CC BY-LL : Creative Commons Parallel-Distribution-Allowed;
CC-BY-DRM : Creative Commons Digital-Rights-Management Allowed;
CC-BY-NO : Creative Commons Attribution Parallel-Distribution-Prohibited 
Digital-Rights-Management-Prohibited

NO is functionally opposed to both LL & DRM.
SA & ND are functionally opposed to each other

Rephrased.
* Do you want to be attributed for you work:  yes / no; [BY]
* Do you want to prohibit commercial distribution: yes/no  [NC]
* Do you want to prohibit derivatives:  yes/no   [ND=yes SA=no]
* Do you want to prohibit DRM:  yes/no [NO=yes, DR=no]
** IF DRM then
    Do you want to require Parallel Distribution  [LL=yes, DRM = no]

Note: The wording,and sequence of the questions can have a significant 
effect on which licence(s) become the most popular.
The above sequence would result in CC-BY-NC-ND-NO being the most 
commonly selected licence --- due to the design of the questions. 
Technical merit would play little, if any role in license selection.

> That said, the current profusion of licenses has been generating 
> confusion, and this is not a propitious time to be splitting off new 
> license variants.

I suspect that most of the confusion is because:
* The specific terms are not defined within the license;
* The meaning of the licenses are vague in critical places;

I'd suggest that creating more variants now will be much better -- both 
short term and long term --- than doing so in the future.

One possibility is a blanket renaming of current CC licences, that 
excludes the CC name.

EG:  "Walled Licence" for ND work;

xan

jonathon