Development of Creative Commons licenses

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

On Thursday 10 May 2007 03:41 am, Joachim Durchholz wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> I have evaluated the discussion I started as "Unbundling the GPL", and
> have been following a few other threads. Hopefull, I'll be able to
> express a bit more precisely what I'm after, and why I'd want it.
>
>
> 1. My current understanding of the situation
>
> Here's my idea of CC's mission and how it tries to achieve it.
>
> CC is trying to encourage giving away works that are typically covered
> by copyright. This includes literature, music, films, and programs, or
> whatever kinds of works are covered by specific copyright legislation
> anywhere in the world. (It would be desirable to have a complete list of
> classes of works and in which legislations they are covered by special
> rules; discussion fine points would be easier with such a reference.)
>
> One of the things that make CC licenses attractive is that they have
> been checked using the legal resources available to CC. Anybody who
> wishes to use a CC license can do so and rest assured that the license
> will do what he wants, and avoid the cost of legal counseling (if
> somebody gives his works away, he'll be particularly unwilling to incur
> legal costs for that anyway).
> I think this part of the strategy has unanimous consent.

I think even at this fundamental a level there is not unanimous consent. For 
instance, I am here because I want to see Free (libre) works created, getting 
them for free (gratis) is nice and all, but I actually have an interest in 
finding ways to help people make a living from creating Free works and 
dealing in their Free works if they desire to make their living doing so.

Now language can be a funny thing, when you said, "CC is trying to encourage 
giving away works that are typically covered by copyright" did you mean 
giving away for free (gratis) or did you have something else in mind?

>
> The next element is that CC has tried to "quantize" the spectrum of
> licenses. In other words, there is a limited set of substantially
> different licenses to choose from; it's quite likely that for many
> people, there's no license that exactly fits their needs, but there's
> always one that's close enough to their intents.

Not really in my case, but there is one that I can make do with while trying 
to find or push for something better. For me that is BY-SA on my original 
works. I can also use BY works as building materials.

> For users of the works, this means that they will know what they can do
> with a CC-licensed work without looking up the license more than once or
> twice, which makes reusing a work more attractive. 

This is a very big plus.

> This is also 
> attractive for licensors because they will know that there will be just
> a minimum amount of misinterpretation.

This is a plus too, but not getting that legal advice on works you are giving 
away (gratis) can still result in gotchas where you think you get the license 
and you really don't.

> Currently, this part of the strategy isn't working too well, at least
> not while wearing my licensee hat. The recent proliferation of special
> licenses for specific kinds of works just means that I won't know what a
> license is anymore.
> The strategy itself seems to have consent, but there is dispute about
> how fine-grained the quantization should be.
>
> The third element is offering licenses that aren't really Commons
> licenses but that give those who wish to try the CC licenses some
> intermediate steps.
> This part of the strategy is controversial. 

It is, but I am not sure if we have yet pinned down the various reasons and 
positions leading to the controversy.

> The ND clause if far too 
> popular for the taste of many, including Lawrence Lessing himself.

Do you mean ND or NC here and below? For me, NC is at least as controversial 
as ND.

> There's also the example of the FSF that has made the strategic decision
> not to offer an ND variant of the GPL, forcing the users of its licenses
> to make a clear decision.

They also have no NC variation. This is their reason for being after all. To 
promote Free software, which has and protects the four freedoms they list. By 
definition, they cannot offer NC and ND options.

> On the minus side, this strategy has prevented the FSF from creating a
> license for those cases where ND would have been legitimate, polarizing
> the programmer community into those that are "pro" and "contra" and
> preventing an unideological discourse.

I see this as a plus. CC needs something similar in my view. And it is still 
possible to have a calm and respectful discourse even with the FSF taking 
such a stand on the license side.
>
>
> 2. Recommendations
>
> Here's my idea how CC could improve.
>
> a) CC should never offer more than five or six discernible elements, be
> they license modules that can be combined, or ready-made license
> combinations with a specific name such as PD.
> This means retracting most (if not all) special licenses and rewording
> the general license terms so that they cover the specific cases.

Do you have suggestions? Less is certainly cleaner.

> For example, SA terms can be reworded to that it covers the intent of
> the GPL without becoming useless for other kinds of works, by adding
> legal fine print that the licensor grants access to the form of the work
> that he used to create (or derive) the work himself.

So, a source code requirement of sorts. Is that you meaning here? If so, I 
hope we can formulate a good one as I would like to see one in SA.

> It might make the CC licenses a viable alternative to the GPL (and
> possibly to other licenses). This would be attractive for those FOSS
> programmers who find the FSF's agenda attractive but don't wish to
> associate themselves with their kind of rhethorics.

I don't think so, at least not for me. I just don't see my choosing to use 
the 
license as necessarily ascribing to some greater world view and certainly not 
necessarily to some association.

The GPL does a good job for what I want with my code. It would be a big plus 
in my book for all Free software people to use the same or compatible 
licenses. (Pie in the sky I know.)

Since CC has not yet been willing to take a stance with respect to Free 
works, 
I currently trusy the FSF more than CC when it comes to writing proper Free 
Software licenses. The FSF does not concern themselves with licenses for art 
at this point and CC has licenses that can serve and I am here trying to help 
as best as I can.
>
> b) CC should explain the quantization strategy, to reduce the pressure
> towards finer quantization.
> Maybe an explanation on the registratin page for the discussion lists
> would do.
> That would be a fine place to explain basic principles, strategies, and
> other policy elements so that participants don't waste everybody's time
> by making unacceptable proposals. The text would have to be reviewed
> occasionally to keep it up-to-date as CC's policies change.)

It seems to me that each license might benefit from a preamble and philosophy 
section.
>
> c) As to the ND issue, it's not clear whether CC should continue to
> offer it or not. There seem to be good reasons to do either.

Again, do you mean ND here, or NC?
>
>
> I'm interested in getting a rough idea where everybody stands on the
> above issues.
> This includes the "official" position of the CC.
> I'd also like to invite those with whom I had serious flamewars,
> provided that we all can stick to the issues and leave out motives,
> backgrounds, or other personals.

I don't know if you consider me to have been in a flame war, but I try not to 
go that route. I am willing to go back and forth trying to reach an 
understanding though.

I am OK with issues. I think stating one's motives can help though as can 
stating one's background.

If we hide our motives and backgrounds, we my rightly be seen as "undercover 
agents" instead of honest participants. (I say this as an explanation of why 
I try to be clear as to where I am coming from here on this list.)
>
> Regards,
> Jo

all the best,

drew
-- 
(da idea man)