Development of Creative Commons licenses

[wolfgang wander <wwc AT lns.mit.edu>]

Dear Teun,

   I believe no one has any objections to the use of derivations on
wikimedia for cc-by-sa licensed imaged.  The author chose SA to
explicitly allow these for all content on the wiki family or similarly
licensed sites.

   What Erik proposes is either to limit the re-use possibilities for
images published by cc-by-sa (since many photographers publishing
under cc-by-sa have always interpreted the license this way) or to
come up with a more restrictive license for new content.  Either way,
by strengthening the copyleft portion of the license for photographic
images you generate more high quality content that is available to use
for Free sites.

   Its about more choice for the content creator.  I am a member of a
photography club of about 60 members. Explaining Creative Commons
interpretation of cc-by-sa to the club would be a futile undertaking.
No one would even consider to publish content under these conditions.
However if re-users of their images were forced to give back to the Free
pool Share-Alike the concept becomes a lot more understandable.  And
of course, no publisher is really forced to release their texts under
a Free license, only if they want to use Free images to illustrate it
they would be.

   This kind of force is very similar to the provisions in the GPL, if
you come up with that great new editor nEwmacs and want to use Emacs'
lisp implementation in it you have the choice to either release nEwmacs
as GPL or write your own newLisp and publish the editor non-Free.


                   Wolfgang

teun spaans wrote:
> Hi Erik,
> 
> At commons.wikimedia.org several forms of derivates are in frequent use:
> * removing watermarks
> * combined pictures where individual images are PD, CC-BY-SA or GFDL
> 
> Perhaps I misunderstand your proposal, but your proposed change seems to
> limit possibilities of the license under which many people published their
> images at both flickr and commons. That does not seem reasonable to me.
> 
> Also, please keep in mind that the derivatives at commons.wikimedia.org are
> not just combinations. These are a minority among the derivatives. Other
> frequent derivatives are the partly colouring of maps to highlight a
> town or
> provence, and the removal of watermarks.
> 
> kind greetings,
> teun
> 
> On 2/21/07, Erik Moeller <erik AT wikimedia.org> wrote:
>>
>> As I've said, I'd be strongly in favor of changing the SA license to
>> require the combination of works in a strong semantic relationship to
>> trigger a secondary SA clause, where each component would have to be
>> licensed under a license which meets the criteria defined at
>>
>> http://freedomdefined.org/Definition
>>
>> but not necessarily the exact same license. This would allow us, at
>> Wikimedia, to combine pictures under CC-BY-SA with GFDL articles
>> without hesitation, but at the same time give photographers and
>> artists reasonable protection when they use the copyleft clause.
>>
>> If there are no clear legal reasons not to do it, then it should be in
>> CC-BY-SA. I'll push the process of creating a new license if
>> necessary, but I don't think it should be. The current implementation
>> simply doesn't make an awful lot of sense for types of works where
>> derivatives are very rarely direct derivatives, and more frequently
>> semantic combinations. I don't see why this should be any more or less
>> legally problematic than, say, the NC restriction.
>>
>> Copyleft should _mean_ copyleft, regardless of the type of work that
>> is being copylefted. The situation where music in a movie triggers
>> share-alike, and a picture in an article does not, is morally
>> unacceptable.
>> -- 
>> Peace & Love,
>> Erik
>>
>> DISCLAIMER: This message does not represent an official position of
>> the Wikimedia Foundation or its Board of Trustees.
>>
>> "An old, rigid civilization is reluctantly dying. Something new, open,
>> free and exciting is waking up." -- Ming the Mechanic
>> _______________________________________________
>> cc-licenses mailing list
>> cc-licenses AT lists.ibiblio.org
>> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-licenses
>>
> 
> 
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> _______________________________________________
> cc-licenses mailing list
> cc-licenses AT lists.ibiblio.org
> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-licenses