Development of Creative Commons licenses

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

On Monday 03 December 2007 21:15:35 Terry Hancock wrote:
> James Grimmelmann wrote:
> > I would say that "weak" and "strong" copyleft are misleading terms
> > because there's a continuum of strength.  A completely non-copyleft
> > license is at the weakest end.  The strongest end (call it CC-SA-to-
> > infinity) would be something like a requirement that the licensee
> > agree to license everything she copyrightable she creates under the CC-
> > SA-to-infinity license.  If she doesn't so agree, she can't use the
> > original CC-SA-to-infinity licensed work at all.
>
> Yes. The terms "weak" and "strong" are clearly relative. I'm not
> entirely sure they are even scalar -- there are multiple ways in which a
> copyleft can be strong or weak: it can bind larger collections of work
> or it can make stronger requirements on the licenses of those works, for
> example.
>
> It could even bind sibling works (in this sense, even the GPL is "weak",
> because it does not insist that all programs on the same physical medium
> are also GPL).

There are at least two "types" of siblings possible and we are not being 
careful to keep them seperate.

Let me give an example.

I have a bunch of songs in wav format on my computer and I want to burn a 
quick CD of random songs for a drive. I have a little script that goes in and 
picks songs in a semi random fashion with a little tweak to try and fill most 
of the CD without too much wastage.

OK, all of these songs are "siblings" on the CD. A BY-SA+ on one of these 
songs should not care as to the license of the other songs on the CD.

Why? Supposedly, the computer program that did the picking does not get a 
copyright on its choice and ordering of the songs. no creativity on its part. 
(Is that correct.)

On another day, I spend hours going through my music collection selecting 
songs that will go together and create a certain mood and figuring out what 
order they should go in. Then I spend time mastering them. I claim a 
copyright on the "album" (Can I get one? A collection copyright?)

OK, all of these songs are "siblings" on the CD. A BY-SA+ on one of these 
songs should care as to the license of the other songs on the CD and the 
license of the 'album" itself. In this case, it should insist all licenses 
are Free, not necessarily BY-SA+, just Free. It should only insist on BY-SA+ 
for derivatives.
>
> > This conversation started out of a belief that the current version of
> > CC-BY-SA, as generally interpreted, is too weak, and that a strong-er
> > copyleft version of it is needed for Wikipedia integration.
>
> And yet, why is Wikipedia turning away from the GFDL? Other than
> complexity of the writing, this is the main difference between the
> "Simplified GFDL" (i.e. no cover/invariant texts) and the CC-By-SA.
>
> I think it's likely that the discontent is at least partially with the
> very claim of the container-binding copyleft in the GFDL. Thus I think
> that Wikipedia might be one of the users who'd balk at an SA+ license.

Right, but if you relax the licensing requirements on the container-binding 
from a copyleft "same exact license" point of view, as we are suggesting 
here, would the problems go away? Or at least most of them and the important 
ones?
>
> > We should be careful about
> > calling that strong-er version "the" strong copyleft version CC-BY-SA,
> > because there are a lot of different degrees of strength it could
> > take.  I'm not sure there'll only ever be one possible "strong"
> > version of CC-BY-SA worth talking about, and I wouldn't like to end up
> > in a situation where we need to talk about the "strong strong
> > copyleft" or the "double-strong copyleft" or "beyond strong copyleft"
> > or "PowerThirst copyleft" or the "less strong copyleft."  Especially
> > if something like Erik's final goal -- you can embed a CC-BY-SA+ item
> > in some kinds of larger works that are under free but non-copyleft
> > licenses -- is part of it, "strong" by itself is going to be a bit of
> > a misleading description.
>
> Agreed. I think that for the purposes of the present conversation we
> haven't stepped over this line, because (I think) we know what we're
> talking about and we're just using the terms as shorthand. But yes, we
> must be careful to define what we mean.
>
> There are three possible outcomes of this conversation:
>
> 1) Inaction. The CC-By-SA is good like it is, learn to love it.
>
>       I could live with that choice. I haven't found the existing
>       terms to be a problem, and I've occasional found them useful.
>
>
> 2) CHANGE the CC-By-SA to make its copyleft stronger.
>
>       I dislike this option, because it "pulls the rug out from
>       under" users who are accustomed to the present rules. We
>       have enough trouble explaining how things are now, so that
>       changing things on people is not so good.
>
>       The principle objectors to the present CC-By-SA are some
>       *producers* who feel the copyleft isn't protecting their
>       interests or promoting their political/ideological agendas.
>
>       Complexity isn't really an issue for producers (not for
>       a long time yet), who have time to read the licenses (or
>       should darned well make the time, IMHO).
>
>
> 3) ADD a CC-By-SA+ to meet the requirements of such producers.
>
>       This would be my recommendation. It should satisfy
>       producers who want the stronger copyleft, and it won't
>       surprise users, because it'll be new.
>
>       Furthermore, for those of us producers who are happy
>       with the status quo, we can keep doing as we have done.

As much as I like 2, I think at this point 3 is the only viable option in 
terms of the possible reputation impact on Creative Commons.
>
>       I must add the caveat, however: this SA+ needs to be
>       thought out carefully! An overreaching copyleft could
>       be a fiasco for the commons, which is something CC
>       does not need. Any copyleft binding a container work
>       needs to allow more variation than one binding only
>       derivative works.

Yes, it can stay tight for the derivate works and loosen up for the related 
works.
>
>       And there need to be scope limits as well:
>
>       If an image is By-SA, must the article containing it
>       be By-SA?
>
>       If the article is By-SA, must the entire website be By-SA?
>
>       If the website is By-SA, must the Internet be By-SA?
>
>       Obviously, at some point we must draw a line.

It should go up the chain as far as new "meta" copyrights go. Terry, please 
comment on this thought. And anyone else. Isn't this a simple line and one 
where we do not have to decide? One where the law already decides?

>
snip
>
> Cheers,
> Terry

all the best,

drew