Development of Creative Commons licenses

[James Grimmelmann <james AT grimmelmann.net>]

Lucas Gonze wrote:
> On 4/1/07, Gregory Maxwell <gmaxwell AT gmail.com> wrote:
>> 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.
> 
> I understand why you're doing it.  I'm telling you that it won't work.
>  It requires way too much labor.
> 
> Anyway, the plank isn't even clearly drafted.  Do I have to make a
> snapshot of my hard drive in case future creators need to figure out
> how my OS supported the software that interpreted the source file?
> How about my CPU, don't I have some obligation to make that available?

My read is that the words "source file" make the answer to those
questions "no."  That might not always be the right answer (one could
hide a lot of important knowledge in the OS), but it's usually right.

My concern with this plank is that it mixes up two distinct functions:
(1) distribution in a modifiable format, and (2) distribution with all
essential data.  The former is a technical issue; the latter is an
intellectual one.  The former is often important for creative works; the
latter is often important for scientific ones.  It's important to have
some such term, and the current language isn't terrible, but this is an
area for improvement.

James