Development of Creative Commons licenses

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

On Monday 04 June 2007 01:21 pm, James Grimmelmann wrote:
> Hear, hear!
>
> This is a good move for license simplicity and for the commons.
>
> Is there any consideration of renaming the SamplingPlus pair of
> licenses, since there is no longer a Sampling license to distinguish
> them from?
>
> James
>
> Lawrence Lessig wrote:
> > Today we are retiring two of the Creative Commons licenses -- the
> > stand alone Developing Nations license, as well as one of the three
> > Sampling licenses we offer. The reasons for these retirements are
> > both practical and principled.
> >
> > The practical reason is simple lack of interest: From the start,
> > Creative Commons has promised to keep our family of licenses as
> > simple as possible. Actual demand has been one of the key indicators
> > of how simple things can be. We estimate just 0.01% of our existing
> > licenses are Developing Nations licenses, and 0.01% are the version
> > of the Sampling license that we are retiring. Those numbers say that
> > these licenses are not in demand.
> >
> > The principled reasons are different with each license. The
> > Developing Nations license is in conflict with the growing "Open
> > Access Publishing" movement. While the license frees creative work in
> > the developing nations, it does not free work in any way elsewhere.
> > This means these licenses do not meet the minimum standards of the
> > Open Access Movement. Because this movement is so important to the
> > spread of science and knowledge, we no longer believe it correct to
> > promote a stand alone version of this license. Later this month, we
> > will begin a discussion about adding the terms of the Developing
> > Nations license to 5 of the other CC licenses, and giving users the
> > option to include those terms in their license. (So, for example, you
> > could select a BY-NC license for the developed world, but offer a BY
> > license for creators within Developing Nations.) Because such an
> > option would be attached to a standard CC license, it would not
> > conflict with the principle we are announcing here. Based upon the
> > feedback we get to that idea, we will decide whether to implement it.

Well, I think it is not a smart move. Anyone choosing that option would in 
effect be "making a new license" that will conflict with the growing "Open 
Access Publishing" movement. Or am I missing something?
> >
> > The Sampling License presents a similar concern. Until today, we have
> > offered three versions of the Sampling license. Two of those versions
> > permit noncommercial sharing of the licensed work (SamplingPlus, and
> > Noncommercial SamplingPlus). One (the Sampling License) only permits
> > the remix of the licensed work, not the freedom to share it. There is
> > a strong movement to convince Creative Commons that our core licenses
> > at least permit the freedom to share a work noncommercially.
> >
> > Creative Commons supports that movement. We will not adopt as a
> > Creative Commons license any license that does not assure at least
> > this minimal freedom -- at least not without substantial public
> > discussion. We are grateful for the feedback, and for the
> > understanding of those who helped us craft the sampling licenses,
> > both of which got us here.
> >
> > This change does not affect any existing licensed work. The links to
> > these licenses, and every Creative Commons license, will always
> > remain valid. The only change we're making today is that we will no
> > longer offer these licenses on our licensing page.
> >
> > To read more about these retirements, please visit our retired
> > licenses page at
> > http://creativecommons.org/retiredlicenses
> >
> >
> > Lawrence Lessig
> > CEO
> > Creative Commons
> > 171 Second Street, Suite 300
> > San Francisco, CA 94105
> > http://creativecommons.org

all the best,

drew

-- 
(da idea man)
Working on a Movie Script or two in June 2007