Development of Creative Commons licenses

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

On Thursday 01 March 2007 09:24 am, Terry Hancock wrote:
> wolfgang wander wrote:
> > To overcome some of the problems you have outlined, especially the ones
> > of publishing images of different license origins, would it be possible
> > to state  in a future Share-Alike-like license that
> >
> > Aggregations with works of any license are allowed as long as
> >
> >    a) the aggregation itself (not all the content) is
> >       released under a SA-like license.
> >    b) content the 'aggregator' has created and has a copyright for
> >       (i.e. text, images, soundtracks) is released under a
> >       SA-like license as well.
> >
> > This should enable you to use fair use images with your text, and
> > generally aggregate any kind of combinable images but would also require
> > publishers to give back to the Free pool in a SA manner.
>
> In spirit, I think this would be okay -- splitting the "parent" and
> "sibling" copyleft cases. But I think it might be virtually impossible
> to write a license that actually has this effect.
>
> Problems to solve:
>
> 1) Clearly the aggregate can't really be By-SA or even By-SA-"like"
> unless the license also changes to not be binding on the atoms of
> construction. For example, if I compose a work constructed of a
> collection of quotes (maybe some of them are by me), the license of the
> collection does not bind the quotes themselves. OTOH, it *may* bind
> other collections based on it.[*]

***
>
> 2) Making it significant that the "aggregator" has also contributed
> "content" to the aggregation is highly suspect. That creates bias
> against particular individuals and ties the two acts together in
> possibly unexpected ways (for example, if aggregate a bunch of media
> together, I might have to avoid including any of my own, because it's
> under an incompatible license. OTOH, I am the copyright owner, so I can
> choose that. UNLESS, the work has already been contributed to by others
> whom I can't contact -- e.g. if it's GFDL or GPL work).
>
> I don't think either complaint is necessarily a show-stopper, but
> they're not going to be a cake walk either.
>
> Cheers,
> Terry
>
>
>
>
> [*]
> This actually makes a hell of a lot more sense for an open hardware
> license, which I'm trying to come up with at the same time as this, so
> let me just go ahead and state that case for comparison:
>
> Hardware is made of many different layers of abstraction: chip-process
> transistors (which are just patterns of shaped/doped silicon),
> combinations of those devices into "IP Cores", combinations of IP Cores
> to form complete chip masks, embedding of chips in leaded packages,
> combinations of chips (and discrete parts like resistors and capacitors)
> into printed circuit boards (PCB), then assembly of PCBs into a chassis
> (like your computer), combinations of whole systems (like when you plug
> your monitor into your computer).
>
> Now here's the kicker: suppose we want free, copyleft designs for chips,
>  PCBs, and complete systems. What does the copyleft bind?
>
> * Can you design a free PCB using proprietary chips?
>       (e.g. this is what the LART was -- one of the first open
>               hardware computers)
>
> * Can you use free chips in a proprietary PCB?
>
> * Can an OEM put an Open Graphics Card into a production, otherwise
> proprietary PC?
>
> * Likewise, can we create a Free PC, even if we have to use some
> proprietary expansion cards (say we haven't got a NIC yet).
>
> You can keep going in either direction. For example, can you use a
> proprietary chemical composition to implement a free chip fab? (although
> that's really going to be under a patent, come to think of it). And can
> you use free computers in a non-free robot, car, or train system (or
> vice-versa?). Just think of that -- would installing a free PC as a
> controller in a metro train system force the release of the train's
> plans under a free license?
>
> You can argue that each design represents a creative act of combining a
> set of uncreated "atoms" into a "work". Of course, one layer's "works"
> are the "atoms" of the layer above, and vice-versa.
>
> But we don't want the copyleft on "works" to bind "atoms", nor do we
> want the copyleft on "atoms" to bind "works". Either would be an
> unacceptable bar to:
>
> 1) Users' freedoms
> 2) Continued innovation
> 3) Acceptance of free works
>
> OTOH, we DO want copyleft to bind evolution in each domain. So, for
> example, we want any chip design based on our chip design to be free.
> Likewise, any PCB based on our PCB should be free (but, for example,
> they might change the PCB to accomodate a proprietary video
> encode/decode chip that we don't have in our design precisely because it
> is proprietary).
>
> As it happens, I have to make a proposal about how to approach this
> problem this coming week (we've been avoiding facing this for awhile now
> ;-) ), so this is really interesting to me right now. I'm beginning to
> think it is really the same problem as the photo case.


*** Terry.

I was referrring to unit of packaging and today unit of copyright. I find you 
talking about works and atoms. I think we may be talking concepts that are 
close if not the same.

I think this concept might warrant its own thread. Your thoughts?

Also, I will include here as well the wording from the FSF's site where they 
describe the Free Art License:

"This is a free and copyleft license meant for artistic works. It permits 
commercial distribution, but any larger work including the copylefted work 
must be free."

Any larger work including the copylefted work must be free (libre I assume...)

After all of this discussion, I am wondering if there are just some domains 
where copyleft does not make much sense and a simple BY wouldbe best.

all the best,

drew
-- 
(da idea man)