Development of Creative Commons licenses

[Terry Hancock <hancock AT anansispaceworks.com>]

Nic Suzor wrote:
> I hope that the lack of worst-case examples is not seen to negative
> the need for a PD clause.

I think this is wrong-headed. The safest choice is to leave things as
they are. It is always possible to introduce a TPM+PD exception in the
future, if it becomes clear that one is needed.

OTOH, there is no way to take it back, once it's done.

Furthermore, it applies retro-actively to currently licensed works!

So there are significant grounds to adopt a conservative attitude.

> The worst-case scenario that you are forced
> to pay to access your own work on a locked platform is the extreme
> side of the argument against PD, and I am saying that I would be
> prepared to accept a licence which allowed that, as long as my content
> (plus improvements) were also available in cleartext.

Why accept it if it isn't necessary?

The truth is that it's a pretty awful consequence. It means that By-SA
is potentially no longer viable for many producers (the ones who are
concerned about seeing their work "exploited").

Cheers,
Terry


-- 
Terry Hancock (hancock AT AnansiSpaceworks.com)
Anansi Spaceworks http://www.AnansiSpaceworks.com