Development of Creative Commons licenses

["Dana Powers" <dana.powers AT gmail.com>]

Sorry to jump in so late, but I noticed that no one had addressed this 
comment.

It is true that not requiring copiers to display or link to the CC
license under which your work is available is legally quite similar to
the status quo.

But it is precisely this status quo that Creative Commons licensing
hopes to avoid.  The confusing maze of rights clearance is a
significant barrier to distribution and reuse of creativity.  By
clearly pointing users to a rights holder and to a permission-granted
license, CC licensors help hack away at the copyright mess.

To me this is the beauty of CC licensing, and I hope you will think
carefully before discarding this deeply important piece of the
commons.

All the best,
Dana

On 4/25/07, matt draghi <mattdraghi AT hotmail.com> wrote:
> Thanks for the info.  Regarding my not wanting to require the stating of the
> license, my reasoning was that since we are to assume that any work we find
> could very well have all the rights reserved, I wouldn't really be
> restricting anyone by not requiring the information of the license. If they
> did not know the license of the artwork, they should assume that the rights
> are all reserved and should believe that with regard to the law they should
> not be copying it in the first place, let alone restricting the copies or
> modifications of their copy.  So wouldn't it be up to the copier to either
> try to find out the license somehow or assume that all rights are reserved
> if they can't or don't want to find out the license - in the case where
> there is not a license stated along with the artwork? (All the above is
> referring to having only the share alike restriction with no other
> restrictions present)
>
> Thanks, Matt
>
> >From: "Greg London" <greglondon.1 AT gmail.com>
> >Reply-To: Discussion on the Creative Commons license drafts
> ><cc-licenses AT lists.ibiblio.org>
> >To: "Discussion on the Creative Commons license drafts"
> ><cc-licenses AT lists.ibiblio.org>
> >Subject: Re: [cc-licenses] just share alike
> >Date: Wed, 25 Apr 2007 21:01:52 -0400
> >
> >On 4/25/07, matt draghi <mattdraghi AT hotmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >>Does anyone know if there is a license for share alike, not requiring
> >>attribution?
> >
> >
> >You can use ShareAlike. And then simply not provide any attribution
> >information.
> >see paragraph 4.c of this:
> >http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/legalcode
> >
> >I'm unclear how on exactly how you would provide your information
> >without making it a requirement. i.e. provide it but specify it is
> >optional.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >>I  have some artwork I want to license as such, and don't want people to
> >>be
> >>forced to say I made it if they copy or modify a copy.
> >
> >
> >If you don't provide info, they don't have to attribute it.
> >How you provide your info, but waive the attribution requirement, I'm not
> >sure.
> >Just add your own disclaimer on your website, maybe.
> >
> >
> >>I am not even sure I want to force them to say what kind of license it
> >>has.
> >
> >
> >well, they would have to, or no one else would know its share alike
> >and know they can't add more restrictions to the work.
> >
> >
> >
> >>I do however want to restrict people from restricting the copying or
> >>modifying of their copies or modified copies.
> >
> >
> >yep. that would be sharealike.
> >
> >
> >
> >>I have been trying to find such a license and could not find one at
> >>creative
> >>commons. The closest one I found was a GPL kind, that was primarily
> >>written
> >>for software, but I think also could appy to anything considered a "work".
> >>That one still required stating the license though. Is there any problem
> >>with taking an existing license, removing the title and changing some of
> >>the
> >>words to make it more like what I want? Incase any of this sounds
> >>uninformed
> >>it is because I have just begun researching this.
> >
> >
> >You can modify a license, you just have to give it a different name.
> >You can't make displaying the license optional though, since downstream
> >users wouldn't know that the work is ShareAlike and can't have other
> >restrictions added.
>
>
> >_______________________________________________
> >cc-licenses mailing list
> >cc-licenses AT lists.ibiblio.org
> >http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-licenses
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> Don't quit your job – Take Classes Online and Earn your Degree in 1 year.
> Start Today!
> http://www.classesusa.com/clickcount.cfm?id=866146&goto=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.classesusa.com%2Ffeaturedschools%2Fonlinedegreesmp%2Fform-dyn1.html%3Fsplovr%3D866144
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> cc-licenses mailing list
> cc-licenses AT lists.ibiblio.org
> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-licenses