Development of Creative Commons licenses

["Björn Terelius" <bjorn.terelius AT gmail.com>]

On 4/25/07, drew Roberts <zotz AT 100jamz.com> wrote:

> >
> > So, it is not fair to say that there is no strong dislikefor NC and ND.
> > It could be more like not wanting to fight that fight at this time. (Not
> > the words I really want, but I can't seem to find them this morning.)
>
> Ok, sorry. I, too, seem to have trouble finding the right words. :-) I know
> that some individuals dislike the NC and ND even for content. What I meant
> was that, as far as I can tell, the general opinion on this list and the
> official opinion of CC is that both NC and ND are alright and have their
> uses in some cases. The point I wanted to make was that when ND and NC in
> general has been debated on this list, there has been at least as many
> people supporting it, so NC and ND in general should not be brought into
> the debate at the moment. If we started to question the policy of the
> creative commons we would never get anywhere.

But isn't it precicesly because CC doesn't recommend software licenses with
the equivalent of NC and ND in them that this whole debate started up?

I meant that it wouldn't be constructive to debate whether NC and ND should be allowed for content. I wanted a debate about whether NC and ND (and preferably BY, SA too) could be adapted for software. And I don't think that CC would have to recommend NC, ND. I would be content if they at least didn't discourage it.

>
> Still, don't you think that an artist should have the right to be properly
> credited for his work if others use it? If I spend half a year writing a
> program and decide to release it as free and open source, then I sure
> wouldn't want someone to just change the title and a do couple of minor
> changes in the GUI and then release my work under their own name, or even
> worse, attempt to sell it.

No, I don't think that. Is that surprising? I think perhaps that plagiarism
should have its own law separate from copyright. I think it would be wrong to
lie and claim you were the original creator of a work if you were not, but I
think BY should be optional in CC land. I also think a NOBY might be
interesting combined with SA. (Not sure how to pull one off though.)

I agree with you that for some, esecially larger projects, it will be cumbersome to attribute the project properly. So having BY optional would be ideal. I maintain that if the author is afraid of plagiarism, he should have the oportunity to have BY.
 

Best regards
-Bjorn