Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

cc-licenses - Re: [cc-licenses] NC considered harmful? Prove it...

cc-licenses AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Development of Creative Commons licenses

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: Terry Hancock <hancock AT anansispaceworks.com>
  • To: Discussion on the Creative Commons license drafts <cc-licenses AT lists.ibiblio.org>
  • Subject: Re: [cc-licenses] NC considered harmful? Prove it...
  • Date: Thu, 08 Mar 2007 04:51:32 -0600

Luis Villa wrote:
> On 3/7/07, Terry Hancock <hancock AT anansispaceworks.com> wrote:
> To get actual evidence, you're going to have to define your terms much
> more precisely than you have; your current definitions are very vague.

Yeah, exactly. That's one reason I asked for help.

> You could perhaps measure re-use of
> samples in ccmixter for a similar study?

That's the sort of thing I'm looking for. Yes, ccMixter identifies
sources, doesn't it? I could select samples of works at random, and then
track their reuse forward in time. It'll be tricky, because NC works
will logically be over-available simply because there are many more of
them ("network effect" -- the same thing you mention below for GPL).

I'm afraid this may not be a great example from the PoV of supporting an
anti-NC thesis, though. Because of network effects and relatively low
utility, it may well be that ccMixter is one of the few places where an
"NC commons" may actually "succeed".

Though now I'm going to have to think about what "succeed" means in this
context. To simply be reused at ccMixter is one thing -- but to have any
relevance beyond it is another.

> The obvious examples, if you're OK with evidence-by-anecdote are all

I'd prefer to avoid it, but I'll use it if it's all I can get. ;-)

> around- open source projects with commercial involvement are the norm
> because they work. There are some variants of open source software
> licenses with NC terms, but they aren't popular.

Yep. NC for software was pretty common in the 1980s and early 1990s. Now
it is officially a dead parrot. ;-)

I *know* this is true, but I'm going to have to dig for specific
examples (I've forgotten about those packages precisely because they
were NC and are therefore of little use!).

> Some of that has to
> do with GPL network effects, of course,

Hmm. Network effects. By which you mean that "GPL Compatibility" rather
than "Copylefted" is the relevant force at work.

> but that isn't the whole story.

I concur.

> I think the most powerful reason for this is that in an NC commons,
> only the original creator has a commercial motivation to contribute

Yeah, I'm familiar with the theory. But I believe empirical arguments
are more compelling.

> (Mark
> Lemley discusses some related concepts in his "Ex Ante Versus Ex Post
> Justifications For Intellectual Property"; I recommend reading it.)

Thanks for the reference!

For other readers, there's a PDF of it here:
http://www.dklevine.com/archive/refs4122247000000000492.pdf

Regrettably most of the other replies are repeats of the same old
theories -- which is fine in itself, but I already know the theoretical
arguments. I'm hoping to figure out some actual testable hypotheses that
there might be some concrete evidence to support one way or the other.

Cheers,
Terry

--
Terry Hancock (hancock AT AnansiSpaceworks.com)
Anansi Spaceworks http://www.AnansiSpaceworks.com





Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page