Development of Creative Commons licenses

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

On Thursday 07 June 2007 03:19 pm, Jonathon Blake wrote:
> 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.

Fine, but read my question carefully again. Can you (honestly) make a case 
that DevNations conflicts with the Open Access Publishing movement but at the 
same time, NC + DevNations style clause does not conflict with the Open 
Access Publishing movement?

That is what I am trying to figure out with what you are saying. Not that you 
can make a case for each either way. That I get.
>
> 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;

This is along the lines of what I have been asking for when I ask for a Free 
Commons Brand to organize under.

Would CR-BY=CC-BY and CR-BY-SA=CC-BY-SA? (I figure yes from context, but just 
checking.)
>
> 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. 

Right, and so do I. I especially can't see at this point how it could be 
better that DevNations.

> 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

all the best,

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