Development of Creative Commons licenses

["Jonathon Blake" <jonathon.blake AT gmail.com>]

Drew wrote:

> Can you agree that dev nations conflicts while this new one does not conflict?

* DevNations conflicts with the Open Access Publishing movement;
* DevNations does not conflict with the Open Access Publishing movement;
* NC + DevNations style clause conflicts with the Open Access
Publishing movement;
* NC + DevNations style clause does not conflict with the Open Access
Publishing movement;
* NC conflicts with the Open Access Publishing movement;
* NC does not conflict with the Open Access Publishing movement;

I can make a case for each of those statements.

The Open Access Publishing movement is heading towards insisting that
any license which does not grant the four freedoms is "non-free".  As
such, all of those licenses are non-free, and if Creative Commons is
going to fully embrace the Open Access Publishing movement, it should
drop all of those licenses.

To avoid the hue and cry if the NC licenses were dropped from Creative
Commons, create a separate brand that offers NC licenses only.

The brand "Creative Rights" would initially offer the following licenses:
* Creative Rights Attribution: CR-BY;
* Creative Rights Share Alike: CR-BY-SA;
* Creative Rights No Derivatives: CR-BY-ND;
* Creative Rights Sampling:  CR-SAMP;

The brand "Creative Commons" would offer the following licenses:
* Creative Commons Attribution:  CC-BY;
* Creative Commons Share Alike:  CC-BY-SA;

The brand "Artistic Rights" would offer:
* Artistic Rights Attribution:  AR-ND
(This is the 'new' CC-BY-ND license);
*  Other licenses that do not conform to the four freedoms, and do not
have commercial limitations would fall into the "Artistic Rights"
brand.

> If either both conflict or neither conflict, then this should not be done for
> the same reasons dev nations should be dropped.

As I wrote earlier, the only time I used it, was with a dual license,
and the organization that wanted the DevNations license ended up using
the CC-NC-SA license instead, because of the ambiguousness within the
DevNations license.

I think that a DevNations style clause, in the existing NC license is
a bad idea. It adds complexity and ambiguousness to a license that
lacks formal definitions of the critical components.  If a DevNations
style license is needed, toss it into the "Artistic Rights" brand.

xan

jonathon