Development of Creative Commons licenses

[jonathon <jblake AT eskimo.com>]

Eric Garner wrote:

> with too many licenses, perhaps a reworking of the
> existing NC license would do the trick. 

Optimist.

A rewrite might work, if, and only if:
* It clearly defined "non-commercial" as a general term;
* Explicitily stated what was permissible for audio;
* Explicitily stated what was permissible for images;
* Explicitily stated what was permissible for performances;
* Explicitily stated what was permissible for AV material;
* Explicitily stated what was permissible for text;
* Explicitily stated what was permissible for physical objects;
* Explicitily stated what was permissible for gaming;

> a checkbox specifying permission for small-scale
> pod/webcasters for instance. Something like this would

The problem with media specific checkboxes, is that users of other media 
 either don't know, or don't care about those options.  An author (text 
material) probably will see that checkbox, figure it won't ever apply, 
and leave it unchecked.   PodMaestro sees the author'smaterial, and 
converts it into aRAP.  Then discovers he can't play his derivative work 
on his podcast, because of the unchecked box.  A box unchecked because 
the author never anticipated that it might apply to his work. [A good 
author will have derivative material whose format is a surprise to them.

(Example time:  How many people could have anticipated the short story 
_Subways are for Sleeping_ would become a board game?)

> alternative body of work made *automatically* more
> accessible for re-use IMO. This is especially poignant
> today in light of the CRB rulings, and I also see it

+1

xan

jonathon