Development of Creative Commons licenses

["Gregory Maxwell" <gmaxwell AT gmail.com>]

On 4/2/07, Lucas Gonze <lucas.gonze AT gmail.com> wrote:
> The "Availability of source data" plank strikes me as a problem,
> because it is burdensome.  Authors should be able to make a processed
> version free without being required to include their sources.

A work leaves the realm of the free if it can not be effectively
extended or enhanced because someone along the chain of distribution
reduced it to some some effectively obfuscated data losing form.
(Obviously, cases where the work is reversibly transformed are not the
intention of that point)

For example, if I told you that you were free to modify this map:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/81/India_roadway_map.png

... It would be an empty gift. To even correct the spelling of a few
city names from the PNG would take more work than completely
recreating the image.

But when I give you access to
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/78/India_roadway_map.svg

You could make the change with nothing more than a text editor.

Parallels can be made for every form of media. Some modifications are
effectively impossible without access to the preferred form for
modification, and most alterations are far easier.  If we do not want
to discriminate against some forms of modification access to the a
preferred form for modification is required.

Sure, you could probably remix the PNG map example into some kind of
anime music video without access to the vector form, but forget
correcting a spelling. :)

The definition makes this point far more elegantly than I have:

'In other words, whenever the user of a work cannot legally or
practically exercise his or her basic freedoms, the work cannot be
considered and should not be called "free."'