Development of Creative Commons licenses

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

On Thursday 26 April 2007 01:47 pm, Terry Hancock wrote:
> drew Roberts wrote:
> > Is the lack of named attribution plagiarism, or is claiming the work as
> > your own plagiarism?
>
> The latter, unless a presumption exists from the context that you are
> passing the work off as your own, IMHO. OTOH, "plagiarism" has no legal
> definition, it's primarily an academic term, akin to "cheating".

It may be primarily an academic term, let's get more street.

Lying. If you tell the public that you created something when it came from 
someone else, that is lying. In a world of automatic copyrights, does that 
come down to fraud? In a world with no copyrights, should that lying be 
against the law?
>
> The attribution requirement prevents plagiarism, however it is more than
> the absolute minimum required to prevent it.

And using copyright law to prevent plagiarism is more than needed as well.
>
> > I gave the example of telling jokes which I may not even know who to
> > attribute to.
>
> The burden of research is the main objection to By-type licensing, IMHO,
> along with the burden of advertising terms (like the old BSD).

Is there anyone on the list who sees this in a different light?
>
> Cheers,
> Terry
>
> IANAL, etc.... (I should make this my signature! :-D )

all the best,

drew
-- 
(da idea man)