Development of Creative Commons licenses

[Paul Keller <pk AT kl.nl>]

On Oct 3, 2007, at 11:14 AM, paola.dimaio AT gmail.com wrote:

> say I had invented a wonderful new recipe that could a) heal people
> from some terrible disease, but b) changing the dosage, it could kill
> people.
>
> I would be happy to license my recipe under cc  for a) and not for b)

i think this whole discussion is getting a little bit of hand (and of  
topic). this is not a question of licensing. you cant licenses  
someone to kill other people (unless you are the head of MI6 that  
is). as far as ik know killing people is governed by criminal law and  
generally not allowed (regardless of the recipe).

> In copyright law, if someone asks me permission to use my work, I can
> say yes or no
> That depends on the proposed terms . If someone from a distasteful
> website asks me to use my content (especially as it bears my name) I
> say 'no' -  I do not want my work and my name associated with that
> website

so then why do you want to use the CC licenses. sounds the standard  
all rights reserved approach suits your purposes fine? the cc  
licenses are designed to give permission upfront  and as you are not  
willing to give permissions upfront based on the criteria offered by  
the cc licenses you are perfectly free to stick with all rights  
reserved copyright law

> Using a cc license, I can no longer make a distinction as to who uses
> my work for what purpose (this is not a moral right) so, I need a way
> or 'restricting' usage to purposes that I would not object to. I think
> a cc licenses should make a provision for that

as far as i understand it has never been the ambition (and for  
practical reasons it also should not be if you ask me) to offer  
personalized cc licenses. that kind of defies the whole puprpose of  
the system and therefore cc should not make a provision for that.

best,
paul
--
paul keller | knowledgeland
t: +31205756720 | e: pk AT kl.nl | www.knowledgeland.org