Development of Creative Commons licenses

["Mike Linksvayer" <ml AT creativecommons.org>]

On 1/24/08, Evan Prodromou <evan AT prodromou.name> wrote:
> On Tue, 2008-01-22 at 16:16 -0800, Mike Linksvayer wrote:\
> > >      3. What is the advantage of the "CC0" brand over the previous
> > >         Public Domain Dedication? Is it a sufficient advantage to
> > >         justify any confusion in people's minds about the two projects?
> >
> > I know nothing about branding, sorry.
>
> s/brand/name/ . "What are we gaining by using the new name 'CC0' rather
> than the old 'Public Domain Dedication'?"
>
> I think the answer is something like, "Using 'CC0' clearly marks the
> difference between a work _actually_ being in the public domain,
> something that varies by jurisdiction and that the creator can't fully
> control (or so we think), to a work being _effectively_ in the public
> domain (to the extent possible under applicable law), which the creator
> _can_ control."
>
> I think that's clear enough that people will be able to understand the
> change and the need for CC0, especially if the PDD is deprecated in
> favour of CC0.
>
> > >      4. How will CC0 be positioned next to the six core licenses? Will
> > >         it be an option on the license chooser?
> >
> > The obvious placement would be wherever the PD dedication is linked
> > now, but  better ideas are welcome.
>
> That's what I thought, but I wanted to check. It seems like keeping both
> the PDD and CC0 active would be really confusing.

I agree with everything you say above.

> I assume, then, that as CC0 gets out of its beta stage, the PDD will be
> deprecated, preferably with some notice as to why, similar to the old
> versions of licenses and licenses that were never upgraded.

In some form, yes.

Mike