cc-licenses AT lists.ibiblio.org
Subject: Development of Creative Commons licenses
List archive
- From: "Nic Suzor" <nic AT suzor.com>
- To: "Greg London" <email AT greglondon.com>, "Discussion on the Creative Commons license drafts" <cc-licenses AT lists.ibiblio.org>
- Subject: Re: [cc-licenses] (no subject)
- Date: Tue, 5 Dec 2006 13:38:50 +1000
On 12/5/06, Greg London <email AT greglondon.com> wrote:
There is no way a CC-SA movie will ever be
released in the current environment of the
movie industry.
The day that a CC licensed movie approaches a deal to get a wide
release, I don't want a flat-out prohibition on DRM stopping that.
Cafune, Elephants Dream, Swarm of Angels, Sanctuary, to name but a
few; there's a growing number of high quality CC-licensed films being
produced.
There is no difference between the Lucas scenario
above and DRM-Dave's hardware, other than semantics.
The scenario you have constructed is a straw man. In your scenario, If
someone (Lucas) says that they'll make the all modifications
(derivative works) available under BY-SA, then that's complying with
the licence. The community benefits from the work done by others to
BY-SA-licensed works.
If Lucas took CC-licensed works, otherwise complied with the licence
by releasing the movie (or his modifications of the cc-licensed works,
if they are separable from the rest of the movie and the entire movie
is not required to be released under the licence), and he needed to
apply a TPM in order to get it distributed, fine.
(note - I don't like this strict interpretation - I think that
significant use of a BY-SA-licensed work as part of a movie would
require the entire movie to be released under BY-SA, not just
modifications to that work).
You want to vote that with your wallet, go for it.[...]
Put a dual license on your content.
Just keep your hands the COMMUNITY's wallet
while you're doing it.
If it is the case that the 'community' really doesn't want to allow
DRM like this, then I can accept that. I will begin to dual license or
re-license my works.
The reason I'm still arguing this point is because I haven't seen a
consensus. We saw an informal 'hum vote' at the iCommons summit in
Brazil. I was just trying to have my point of view noted and counted.
I would prefer not to have to dual-licence my works. I am afraid of
the growing problems associated with licence proliferation and
incompatibility. I definitely don't want to have to roll my own
licence. If I have to, I will, but I thought that the discussion on
this list could be a constructive way of analysing the arguments and
coming to a sensible decision.
Again, I'm not trying to speak for anyone else. I just wanted to
participate in the drafting review process.
kind regards,
nic.
-
Re: [cc-licenses] (no subject)
, (continued)
- Re: [cc-licenses] (no subject), Benj. Mako Hill, 12/05/2006
- Re: [cc-licenses] (no subject), Terry Hancock, 12/06/2006
- Re: [cc-licenses] (no subject), Terry Hancock, 12/05/2006
- Re: [cc-licenses] (no subject), Benj. Mako Hill, 12/05/2006
- Re: [cc-licenses] (no subject), James Grimmelmann, 12/05/2006
- Re: [cc-licenses] (no subject), Terry Hancock, 12/06/2006
- Re: [cc-licenses] (no subject), Greg London, 12/04/2006
- Re: [cc-licenses] (no subject), Nic Suzor, 12/04/2006
- Re: [cc-licenses] (no subject), drew Roberts, 12/04/2006
- Re: [cc-licenses] (no subject), Nic Suzor, 12/04/2006
- Message not available
- Re: [cc-licenses] (no subject), Nic Suzor, 12/04/2006
- Re: [cc-licenses] (no subject), drew Roberts, 12/04/2006
- Re: [cc-licenses] (no subject), Greg London, 12/04/2006
- Re: [cc-licenses] (no subject), Nic Suzor, 12/04/2006
- Re: [cc-licenses] (no subject), rob, 12/05/2006
- Re: [cc-licenses] (no subject), Greg London, 12/05/2006
- Re: [cc-licenses] (no subject), rob, 12/05/2006
- Re: [cc-licenses] (no subject), Alek Tarkowski, 12/05/2006
- Re: [cc-licenses] (no subject), Bjorn Wijers, 12/05/2006
- [cc-licenses] Discussion, Benj. Mako Hill, 12/05/2006
- [cc-licenses] ParDist does not address commercial monopoly, Greg London, 12/06/2006
Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.