Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

cc-licenses - Re: [cc-licenses] Clarification needed - Copyleft AND Share-Alike with Images

cc-licenses AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Development of Creative Commons licenses

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: "Gregory Maxwell" <gmaxwell AT gmail.com>
  • To: peter.brink AT brinkdata.se, "Discussion on the Creative Commons license drafts" <cc-licenses AT lists.ibiblio.org>
  • Subject: Re: [cc-licenses] Clarification needed - Copyleft AND Share-Alike with Images
  • Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2007 20:17:28 -0500

On 2/15/07, Peter Brink <peter.brink AT brinkdata.se> wrote:
B) The CC-licenses are designed to extend the scope of choices available
for _creators_ and thereby indirectly extend the freedom of users to
re-use. They are not designed to extend one creators control over other
creators independent works.

If someone else distributes a new work which includes my work, it is
not an independent work. In the absence of a license which specifies
the terms under which they are permitted to perform acts normally
reserved for the copyright holder, we call such usage a copyright
infringement.

It would appear, however, that your first point in (B), "CC-licenses
are designed to extend the scope of choices available for _creators_
", answers my question about the purpose of the CC-by-sa and other CC
licenses... Even still, I don't feel very able to choose when I find
out that SA isn't a proper copyleft or that NC is being redesigned so
that Web 2.0 profiteers can make a quick buck off the work of those
who have selected NC licenses.

I find it unfortunate that an organization which does not share the
goal of nurturing the creative commons has taken the title "Creative
Commons" for itself.

I guess it should be no surprise that an attempt to further
democratize the control of license selection would result in a tragedy
of the (creative) commons.




Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page