Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

cc-licenses - Re: [cc-licenses] Retiring standalone DevNations and one Sampling license

cc-licenses AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Development of Creative Commons licenses

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: Terry Hancock <hancock AT anansispaceworks.com>
  • To: Discussion on the Creative Commons license drafts <cc-licenses AT lists.ibiblio.org>
  • Subject: Re: [cc-licenses] Retiring standalone DevNations and one Sampling license
  • Date: Wed, 06 Jun 2007 11:36:50 -0500

Lawrence Lessig wrote:
> 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.

I also applaud this decision. I think it's the one that leads CC back to
living up to its name, although I thing some more and perhaps harder
steps might be needed to really get there.

> 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.

Regarding the sampling license, I'd like to draw your attention to a
recent discussion here (almost at the same time as your announcement):

https://lists.ibiblio.org/sympa/arc/cc-licenses/2007-June/005829.html

The "no advertising" clause, while less onerous than the NC clause, here
defeats the evident purpose of extending the range of fair use. I
originally had thought that the CC-Sampling license would permit
material to enter commons use -- without the compromises on saleability
of the original which artists are most concerned about, so long as the
initial step was "sufficiently transformative", but it seems this is untrue.

So yet another "Creative Commons" license fails to support commons
production. And yet, it comes *so close*.

So I would propose dropping the "no advertising" clause from the
Sampling-Plus license and allowing the NC-Sampling license to take up
the slack for anyone who really thinks they need to restrict how samples
are used.

Of course, there may need to be renaming to avoid the upgrade issue for
existing CC-Sampling-Plus users who are afraid of advertisers.

Is it not possible to meet their requirements with restrictions on the
transformation process, rather than on the resulting samples? From a
commons perspective, it is highly undesireable to have such limitations
on the samples themselves.

Cheers,
Terry

--
Terry Hancock (hancock AT AnansiSpaceworks.com)
Anansi Spaceworks http://www.AnansiSpaceworks.com





Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page