Development of Creative Commons licenses

[Joachim Durchholz <jo AT durchholz.org>]

Greg London schrieb:
> > Just imagine that people wouldn't be forced to roll
> > their own licenses because the GPL agenda doesn't fit
> > the constraints  under which they can make their
> > software Open Source.
>
> Uh, you said you want a NonCommercial and NoDerivative
> license. Neither are Open Source.

Sure.
However, in non-software areas, the local equivalent of Open Source is 
just a part of the spectrum that CC covers.
And yes, I do think that one can write closed-source software without 
being unethical ;-) (this is the point where I think that RMS and the 
FSF overstate the case, even though such overstatement may be necessary 
for political reasons).

> My experience around open source and other licensing
> lists is that a lot of times when someone comes in and
> says we need a new license, it often is shown that the
> person who made the suggestion doesn't understand some
> aspect of the licenses that already exist, which is
> understandable, since the legalese can be tricky sometimes,
> or they don't understand how Open Source works, which
> is understandable, because there are a lot of
> Religious Arguments given in defense of Open Source
> and a lot of Religious Arguments in defense of non-Open
> licenses.

I agree with the latter.
I don't understand the legal details of the licenses; IANAL.
However, I also don't understand that there are dozens of more-or-less 
"open" software licenses; I can see the usefulness of a handful, but 
last time I looked at the oss site, there was a bewildering array.

There have been several attempts at unifying FOSS licensing, none of 
which were successful.
One of my hopes is that CC can establish a better precedent.

> NC and ND, in my unofficial opinion, are highly overrated.

Well, that's a different issue. Maybe these aren't too relevant in 
general, but I think they aren't more or less relevant for software than 
for other uses.

> ND allows the original work to be passed around without
> modification. NC allows derivatives to be made, but can't
> be passed around for money. Put them together, and you can't
> make changes, and you can't make money. About all that's left
> is that the license allows a fan club to pass around original
> copies for free.
>
> (sarcasm)Wow.(\sarcasm)

Actually, that's still far more than the usual "All Rights Reserved" 
disclaimer.
And it can be useful, e.g. for promotional purposes, or when somebody 
just wants to share his work.
It would apply to a lot of freeware, too.

> In the age of the internet and electronic copies of works,
> there is nothing that NC-ND gives you that you couldn't just
> as easily accomplish by making the work All Rights Reserved
> and posting it on your website for free downloads.

Not really.
First, there's a difference if that website is down. That's particularly 
relevant if the website is permanently down.

> Rather than talk in generalities, perhaps you could help
> me understand your intentions with the licenses by explaining
> what, exactly, it is you're trying to do?

Good point. My previous questions were more aimed at finding out the 
current consensus (or dissent, as the case may be *g*) before pursuing 
my nefarious hidden agenda ;-)

> Don't worry about the licenses, just list what works
> you have,

Several programs.

> how they're getting around in the world,

Mostly just to customers.
I'd like to relicense some of that stuff in half-open form. NC-ND would 
actually serve me well in some cases.

However, my real concern actually goes beyond the software that I 
release. I'm more concerned about the criticism that has been aimed at 
GPL2, and which is partly renewed even more strongly against GPL3.

The problem with the GPL is that it's used (abused, some will say) to 
further a rather specific set of ideas about how software should be 
written and distributed. In a sense, the GPL is trying to force software 
creators into a specific set of behaviours, just as Copyright and Patent 
law are (ab)used by companies to force creators into a different set of 
behaviors.
I'd like to choose my position myself. I want freedom from political or 
business agendas. I want to release software the way *I* want, and not 
the way that RMS or MS have tried to pre-decide for me. (As an aside, if 
I were to choose, I'd side with RMS. I don't think his agenda is 
unethical or something, I just want to be able to follow my own ethics, 
which isn't 100% identical with his.)

So what I really want is a set of licence building blocks that I can 
choose from. The one thing that CC does for me is to do the legal 
footwork and set up the fine print so that I don't have to consult a 
lawyer. Not that paying a lawyer for his work is out of the question, 
but I can't judge the quality of his work, and I don't have a chance 
whether the text will be properly understood around the world.
The other thing is that CC has "quantized" the continuum of possible 
licenses. Instead of a multitude or licenses with almost(!!) irrelevant 
differences, there's a relatively small set of licenses with meaningful 
differences.
That's all things that CC can do and has done for artistic works. I hope 
to see the same things done for software :-)

Now, for software, the building blocks I'd want to choose from are:
* Usage restrictions. Popular ones are:
  * Not for commercial use
  * Not for military use
  * Not for porn use
  * Not for safety-critical use
* Redistribution conditions. Popular ones:
  * Not for resale
  * Don't restrict the rights when passing on
  * Allow modifications
  * Attribution
* Source
  * Give access to the sources
    ("Source" should be defined as "preferred form for modification")
  * Give access to sources of modifications
That's a few too many points, and I may have overlooked a few, so a 
process to arrive at a viable form of software license, one would 
probably first have to collect proposals, then concentrate the list back 
to the essentials.

Hope this clears up what I'm aiming at :-)

Regards,
Jo