Development of Creative Commons licenses

[James Grimmelmann <james AT grimmelmann.net>]

azrael wrote:
> Thanks James,
> 
>>
>> What your license will do is make sure that no one changes the
>> methodology as they distribute it far and wide, and also make sure that
>> no one distributing it will profit *from the distribution*.
> 
> 
> Good, sorry, I didn't quite make it clear which side of the fence we
> were on
> on this one :-) The above result is what we were looking to obtain -
> protection of our work, but free use of the "benefits" from following it

Happy to hear this.

.
>> (2) If the above happens ( either for profit or not ... ) and the
>> acquired
>>
>> > results are presented in court, would this qualify as a "public
>> > performance"
>> > of the work, and would it then be licensed under the same terms ? (
>> > Obviously this is an impossible legal position ... )
>>
>> It would (I think) be a public performance, but because of the answer to
>> (1), there wouldn't be a licensing issue.  Note also that with a
>> BY-NC-ND license, there's no share-alike clause, so there'd be no
>> question about relicensing the in-court results under the same terms.
>> The reuse is either forbidden in the first place, or permissible and
>> whatever contributions the person using it made would be free and clear.
> 
> 
> Can I ask for some further clarification on this please ? Does producing
> work from a methodology licensed through CC have no requisite to state that
> the resulting work was created using such a methodology ( other than good
> scientific citation ) ?

My understanding is "no."  Your best leverage as an author to force
someone to acknowledge you if they use your methodology is not to let
them see it unless they promise to acknowledge you.  Under a CC (or any
open) license, hiding it from them isn't an option.  Copyright, however,
doesn't reach far enough to force methodology users to acknowledge you,
unless they do something like reading your precise instructions out loud
in public.

James