Development of Creative Commons licenses

[James Grimmelmann <james AT grimmelmann.net>]

drew Roberts wrote:
> On Saturday 02 December 2006 11:55 am, James Grimmelmann wrote:
> > That is, with software, you need source code in order to
> > make full use of the relevant freedoms; with many other sorts of works,
> > you do not need the source code to enjoy those freedoms.
>
> I disagree with this strongly. I just feel that it is next to impossible to 
> properly express such a "source" requirement in simple language and so have 
> to content myself to live without it.

With an oil painting, a "source" requirement would be not just difficult 
to express but impossible to implement.  This is not a problem of 
definitions.  It would be ridiculous to ask a painter to make a 
"modifiable" version available.

> We are in fact much poorer for nat having the source though.
>
> James, please answer this for me. Why do you insist that it is essential to 
> allow my works to be used on a platform where only the blessed can put them 
> there? (I will by the way, at this point, allow mine on there if the blessed 
> will pay for the use of my works.)

It is not essential.  It is merely a good idea and more consistent with 
Creative Commons's goals than the alternative currently under discussion.

James