Development of Creative Commons licenses

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

On Wednesday 28 February 2007 07:28 pm, Terry Hancock wrote:
> drew Roberts wrote:
> > On Wednesday 28 February 2007 01:28 pm, Terry Hancock wrote:
> >>>>A creator is always, in a game theoretic sense going to
> >>>>be motivated to seek more and more control. But that's not what we're
> >>>>supposed to be about here (or if it is, then I have to abandon CC
> >>>>entirely).
> >
> > Terry, I think this was the "threat" referred to. I figured that when he
> > posted it at least.
>
> Well, duh. But it is not a threat, and it's not "if CC promotes anything
> except 'By'" as was asserted. Hence "no such threat".
>
> >>NONE of CC's statements (including these) ever suggests trying to
> >>*extend* the creators reach beyond:
> >>
> >>A) Control of their own work
> >>
> >>B) The limits already established by copyright law
> >>
> >>That's the essence of this.
> >
> > I don't really think it is.
>
> Yes it is!
> (Every bit as well supported as your claim! ;-) )

I don't think it is because it is preceisly the limits already established by 
copyright law that would permit this play in the first place if it were 
possibly.

Now, that is a bit more supported. You were right there before now.
>
> You guys seem really committed to this idea. 

No, and you are seriously misreading me if you can honestly say that. I am 
comitted to exploring it though.

> Well, all I can say is that 
>  I have a gut feeling that you are WRONG, WRONG, WRONG. And my personal
> experience is that my gut is usually right.


And my personal experience is also that my gut is usually right. Except when 
it comes to the workings of copyright law for instance. I have been surprised 
many times in this domain.

>
> I predict that if you attempt to fly such a license, it will be a dismal
> failure. 

That may indeed be true.

> No one will want to use your work, so you might as well have 
> not published it; it will add as much or more confusion as the whole NC
> license business; and it (and you for promoting it) will be rejected and
> reviled by the free community as a whole.

What I am more exploring right now is if there is any real benefit to BY-SA 
over BY in most cultural works.
>
> I've attempted to justify that feeling with arguments about the
> fundamental parity problems that you would be introducing, but if you
> still can't see it -- well, I can't force you to see it the way I do.

No, but it might help if you went back and forth with the arguments for a few 
more rounds.
>
> What you're worrying about ultimately is a case of the "free rider"
> problem. 

No, I think I have said this before, but I will say it now just to be 
perfectly clear.

If you take my BY-Sa works, make copies and sell them and never put any of 
your original works under a Free license, I might not think much of you, but 
I will not hurt my head too much trying to solve that "problem" in fact, if 
you search for "free rider" and "all the best" and drew, you may find where I 
have said in the past that I don't really think you can have free riders when 
it comes to GPL programs.

> The thing about information works, though, is that free riders 
> basically don't cost you anything. Arguments about "lost revenue" are
> usually flawed because they don't take into account the fact that if
> your work wasn't freely usable, they just would use someone else's that is.

I don't think I have made the lost revenue argument. If I put out my code 
under the GPL, I want to see more Free code, not more money. (The GPL does 
not ensure this, but it increases the chances of it in my mind.
>
> I'm not going to spend any more time on it though. 

Terry, I urge you to reconsider. In my years on these lists, I don't ever 
recall being on the other side of the fence from you before much less 
thinking your attitude was not the best. I do think you could do better here 
though. (This is offered in all humility.)

> If you really it's 
> such a good idea, just go ahead and try it. Who am I to tell you how to
> live your life? ;-)

Now, let's go a bit deeper if we may...

Let's get back to a BY-SA novel.

Let's say there is a first draft of a BY-SA novel sitting out on the web.

Someone comes along and decides they can improve it and make some money on 
it. 
They are not a fan of Free licenses.

They edit some chapters and rewrite others from scratch. They figure they 
have 
to put the BY-SA on the edited chapters but figure that since they rewrote 
the other chapters from scratch that they can put ARR on those. (Can they? If 
so, why? If not, why not?) They publish and sell the book.

I made up this example as one of putting some copyleft work and some ARR work 
in the same package. (Where all works are text works.)
>
> Cheers,
> Terry

all the best,

drew
-- 
(da idea man)