Development of Creative Commons licenses

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

On Thursday 07 June 2007 04:19 pm, Terry Hancock wrote:
> drew Roberts wrote:
> > On Thursday 07 June 2007 03:19 pm, Jonathon Blake wrote:
> >>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;
>
> This is a cool idea, by the way. I wonder if CC will seriously consider it?

Well, I have never heard so much as an official peep to me request for a Free 
CC brand so I am not going to hold my breath. I do eagerly await an answer 
though.
>
> >>The brand "Creative Commons" would offer the following licenses:
> >>* Creative Commons Attribution:  CC-BY;
> >>* Creative Commons Share Alike:  CC-BY-SA;
> >
> > Would CR-BY=CC-BY and CR-BY-SA=CC-BY-SA? (I figure yes from context, but
> > just checking.)
>
> No, I think he means for all of the "Rights" licenses to include NC, so
> CR-BY = CC-NC-BY
> CR-BY-SA = CC-NC-BY-SA

Duh! (*zotz slaps himself in the head! Gently though.)
>
> (except of course that he wants to delete the licenses on the right side
> from the list of license offered under the "Commons" brand).
>
> I think it's a terrific idea. Although, leaving the "NC" in, might be
> better -- as in "CR-NC-BY", for continuity reasons.

I think the NC should be left in for clarity myself.
>
> >>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.
>
> I dislike the name, but otherwise it's okay. Maybe "Authors Rights" or
> "Artists Rights" would be more appropriate, emphasizing the retention of
> rights. Or how about "Creative Control"? :-)
>
> >>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.
>
> I guess, being a relatively poor person in a rich nation, I'm pretty
> biased against the whole concept of a "developing nation" license or
> clause.
>
> I mean, it's not the nation that you're licensing stuff to, it's people.
> And poor people live in a lot of countries, both rich and poor. So, if
> you're doing it out of some bleeding-heart desire to help "all those
> poor people over there", it might be a lot better to pick a license that
> helps "poor people right here" as well. The whole concept just seems
> very biased and unfair to me.
>
> IMHO, there have to be better ways to achieve the same ends.
>
> Cheers,
> Terry

all the best,

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