Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

cc-licenses - Re: [cc-licenses] Coloriuris

cc-licenses AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Development of Creative Commons licenses

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: Mia Garlick <mia AT creativecommons.org>
  • To: Discussion on the Creative Commons license drafts <cc-licenses AT lists.ibiblio.org>
  • Subject: Re: [cc-licenses] Coloriuris
  • Date: Fri, 5 Jan 2007 11:57:35 -0800

comment below.

On Jan 5, 2007, at 11:40 AM, Benj. Mako Hill wrote:

<quote who="Mia Garlick" date="Fri, Jan 05, 2007 at 11:23:50AM -0800">
what makes you think an assignment is involved?

I don't think that. I was just trying to explain what I tought Evan was
saying. I do not trust my Spanish to make any firm statements about what
they are or aren't doing. :)

the explicit process to opt in for licensors is similar to CC
licenses (and other legal tools such as Founders Copyright )in
general. there is no opt in process for licensees under a founder's
copyright so i don't see any parallels between founders copyright and
Coloriuris licenses in this regard. but happy to be convinced
otherwise.

Perhaps you can clarify this paragraph because I think I am confused.
The first sentance and paranthetical aside seems to say that there is an
explicit opt-in process for Founders Copyright. The next sentance says
that there is not. Perhaps I am confused.

the distinction i was trying to make was between the licens*or* side and the licens*ee* side. on the licensor-side, all CC legal tools are opt in - ie. you have to choose to apply it to your work. on the licensee side, the licensor offers the work to the public under particular terms so i guess you could say that they are opt in (Ie. the licensee can choose to use the work under those license terms or not use it at all or negotiate separate terms) but i was saying that they are not - at least not in the same was as the Coloriuris system. all of this is semantics really - i guess what i was trying to say was that i didn't really see how characterising Founder's Copyright as "opt in" made it that much different to the core CC licensing suite.

i guess what i understand to be the main distinction between CC licenses vis a vis coloriuris is that a Coloriuris licensee is supposed to click the "I accept" button and expressly "opt in" to accept the license. that is, as i understand it, a main point of difference between the Coloriuris model and *all* CC legal tools...

i'd be interested as to why Evan thought this was similar to Founder's Copyright because I don't quite see the similarities myself and certainly the Coloriuris criticisms of CC (we were lucky to have a really good intern who was fluent in English, Spanish & Portuguese recently to work on translating the Coloriuris site and claims re our licenses) relate to our licenses, not Founder's Copyright...but again, happy to be convinced otherwise...


To make sure we are on the same page, I was thinking of the CC Founders
Copyright where, according to the CC description, copyright holders sell
their work to CC for $1 and then get a 14-28 year exclusive license to
that work, after which the work goes back into the public domain. That
seems to be both opt-in and using an explicit process that is different
from the other CC licenses.

Later,
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
_______________________________________________
cc-licenses mailing list
cc-licenses AT lists.ibiblio.org
http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-licenses





Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page