Development of Creative Commons licenses

[drew Roberts <zotz AT 100jamz.com>]

On Sunday 25 February 2007 07:56 pm, Terry Hancock wrote:
> drew Roberts wrote:
> > To me the question is why copyleft cannot work this way? Is it impossible
> > or just the result of a choice on the part of CC? For instance, couldn't
> > mere aggregation be off limits for BY-SA works? (Not should it or
> > shouldn't it, could it or couldn't it?)

Terry, as a whole, let me say I seriously don't think you get the point of my 
post. At least the way you answer leads me to believe this.
>
> 1) It's decision by the framers of the copyright law, because it's a
> fair use issue.

I don't get this. Please explain the point you thought I made that this 
addresses.

I was not asking about copyright but rather about copyleft.

Sure, copyleft works within the confines of copyright, but that leaves broad 
options open to those making copyleft licenses.

So, is it that copyleft cannot work this way? Yes or No please.

Is it just the result of a choice made by CC? Again,Yes or No please.

This is not to be snippy, just to get a clear answer. Explanations of the 
Yeses or Nos more than welcome.
>
> 2) UNLESS you count *contracts* in which you can legally give up rights
> you would ordinarily have. This is a very ethically suspect idea, but I
> understand that courts have supported the Big Money on this point, so it
> is possible.

First, doesn't CC claim their licenses are contracts? Or is that claim on a 
place by place basis?

Second, why must it go there?

Give all fair use rights. Give right to make copies or derivatives. Do not 
allow making of copies in conjunction with non-Free works even in the case of 
mere aggregation.

No EULA type contract needed. Copyright laws forbidding of making copies 
without permission is all that would be needed.

Now, from what I gather, no one is calling for preventing mere aggregation in 
the case of BY-SA works,what they weem to want is to deny copying in the case 
of using BY-SA works in the case where there is no derivative but there is a 
linking somewhere between making a derivative and putting copyleft and ARR 
songs on the same CD. Surely if we can prevent mere aggregation, we can find 
some language to do what people want. If not, I would like to have an 
understandable explanation.
>
> 3) In which case Creative Commons could choose to go the EULA route,
> removing fair use rights. But then they would EVIL, EVIL, EVIL. And we
> should spit upon their name.

I do not wich to see anything like a EULA.
>
> Of course, some people are already doing that over the whole
> non-commercial thing -- so they'd probably find that kind of clarity to
> be an improvement. ;-)
>
> But honestly, I don't think CC wants to go there. Freedom and fair use
> rights are important. They need to be expanded, not restricted.

How is stopping someone from using my copyleft illustrations in their ARR 
children's story restricting fair use and freedom when my aim is to have the 
story be copyleft as well? (This is a made up example, I don't really do 
illustrations... ~;-)
>
> Cheers,
> Terry

all the best,

drew
-- 
(da idea man)