Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

cc-licenses - Re: [cc-licenses] Version 3.0 -- It's Happening & With BY-SA CompatibilityLanguageToo

cc-licenses AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Development of Creative Commons licenses

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: Mike Linksvayer <ml AT creativecommons.org>
  • To: Discussion on the Creative Commons license drafts <cc-licenses AT lists.ibiblio.org>
  • Subject: Re: [cc-licenses] Version 3.0 -- It's Happening & With BY-SA CompatibilityLanguageToo
  • Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2007 12:00:38 -0800

On Thu, 2007-02-15 at 14:20 -0500, James Grimmelmann wrote:
> Mike Linksvayer wrote:
> > How can we further encourage licensors to be specific? Suggestions
> > welcome, but be patient -- it always takes awhile to get buy in from CC,
> > CC affiliates and the greater CC community, which includes a whole lot
> > more than just frequent posters to the cc-licenses list (not that we
> > don't love you all).
>
> A "tell us which license you chose and why" campaign would be a good
> meme to spread.

Good idea. A few times I've noticed people doing that on their own I've
blogged it, though the only one I could find quickly is
http://creativecommons.org/weblog/entry/4282

I wonder if "write about X and tag 5 other people to do the same" would
work here -- "Tell us which license you chose and why, and tag five net
friends who have used a CC license to do the same."

> The new beta license-elements picker is a great idea,
> and with some interface tinkering, it ought to be the standard way of
> picking elements. People should be thinking of the licenses as built up
> from standard elements and reflecting on which freedoms they wish to
> give to licensees. The traditional multiple-choice interface is
> reasonable, but not as transparent as it could be.

A new iteration of the beta license picker will be out later in the
month.

> I also wish that the license naming scheme were standardized on
> "Creative Commons" + Element 1 + Element 2 + . . . where each element is
> a restriction on use and no restrictions means public domain.

That's exactly the naming scheme for the six mainline licenses, so no
renaming is needed, unless I misunderstand your suggestion.

> The
> practice of coining new names for old licenses -- "Wiki," "Music
> Sharing" -- is particularly pernicious and I wish it would stop.

I agree, to obivously mixed results. But a new name for an old license
is better than a new niche license.

> A
> Great Renaming would be disruptive, I know, but it would be worth
> thinking seriously about what it would take to get there at some point
> in the future.
>
> Someday I will help this cause, as well, with a "NonCommercial
> ShareAlike Considered Harmful" essay, but that will have to wait for
> more time on my plate.
>
> In general, the goal is to encourage mindfulness about license elements.
> They are important properties that people should think about, not
> details to be hidden.



--
http://wiki.creativecommons.org/User:Mike_Linksvayer





Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page