Development of Creative Commons licenses

[James Grimmelmann <james AT grimmelmann.net>]

Jake McKee wrote:
> Thanks for the well documented thoughts. I understand why the branching
> issues are a problem, certainly. But to me, the real question your valid
> points raise is whether or not the actual implementation method is
> correct. It seems like we're still thinking far too old school about
> licenses (or at least the creation of them). Attributes are supposed to
> be just that - attributes of something bigger. Shouldn't the core of the
> licenses be the bigger thing, while the various conditions (i.e.
> attributes) are easy to swap out?  Its sounds like we're getting caught
> up in the branding, rather than providing a simple method for someone to
> clearly "express intent" of their content.

I agree with you here.  I would prefer if all of the CC licenses were
attribute-based, rather than being named after their proposed
application.  That would clarify a great deal of the potential confusion.

> 
> James, you said: "Here, I think that the NC license provides an okay
> basis for a "no resale" license in practice; use the NC and then state
> that you are also okay with companies using it for internal purposes."
> 
> This, in my opinion, defeats much of the point of CC. Look at Flickr's
> implementation of license selection. Tell me where there's an option in
> the licensing choices to make those kinds of caveats. And aren't those
> caveats far far more dangerous than branches? You've removed the clarity
> of intent from the licensing process itself. If I have to add a caveat
> into my image description on Flickr saying what NC means (or any other
> attribute, really) then personally I see that as a failing license.

An underappreciated virtue of CC licenses is that they invite a further
conversation.  Simply by using one, even if it's not terribly
permissive, I invite people to ask whether X further use is also okay
with me.  I've found that even where people specify ND on photographs,
for example, that they're often fine with various kinds of edits.  So in
this respect, even fairly broad-brush licenses provide the starting
point for more discussion.  This hardly answers your concerns (and it
would be much better for all of this to be automatic rather than
negotiated), but it's not necessarily failure.

James