Development of Creative Commons licenses

[drew Roberts <zotz AT 100jamz.com>]

On Wednesday 25 April 2007 03:05 pm, Björn Terelius wrote:
> 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.

Fine, but plagiarism and BY really are different things. I could put out a 
book with my original works in one type face and the SA works of others in 
another. I could indicate that my works were SA and that the other works were 
by various unnamed authors. There would be no plagiarism as I would not be 
claiming their works as my own. I would just not be naming them. For whatever 
reasons.

I may be using an bit of an incorrect definition of plagiarism. I am talking 
of claiming someone else's work as your own as opposed to not properly giving 
credit as in scholarly traditions for instance. When I am standing around 
with a group of people and we get to telling jokes, no one assumes the jokes 
being told are original to the tellers. When one happens to be an original, 
it might be pointed out though.

Also, I wa not talking of issues with BY for big projects but rather for a 
long chain of random reuses in odd and unexpected ways.

Oh, and if anyone noticed humbers in a prior post, I did a quick search:

http://www.thesa.com/th/thi-61-34-55-th-71-162-48
Quote: a humber is a variable-precision number
Humber stands for "humongous number," which can be …
>
> Best regards
> -Bjorn

all the best,

drew
-- 
(da idea man)