Development of Creative Commons licenses

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

On 1/28/08, drew Roberts <zotz AT 100jamz.com> wrote:
> On Monday 28 January 2008 05:52:49 Paul Keller wrote:
> > The CS will not take as a member if you allow
> > commercial uses of your music for free (which BY or BY-SA).
>
> No problem. But they would be collecting royalties that were rightfully mine
> for the use of my music and I could set about raising whatever amount of
> sting I wanted to get them to give me my share as a non-member or to take me
> as a member on my terms.

Is there any use case for Drew's suggestion? It seems that EU
collecting societies are clearly not a use case. Another way of
putting it: is there any compulsory collection of fees in the world
that would happen anyway regardless of the public license waiver of
such fees and from which the rightsholder would not automatically be
excluded from by use of a Free license?

Please followup on cc-community. I suspect this is a long-winded
discussion that should be concluded before coming back here with
something concrete for CC licenses. Anyone on cc-community who wants
to read the thread so far, see
https://lists.ibiblio.org/sympa/arc/cc-licenses/2008-January/thread.html#6285

I let these last two emails through to cc-licenses because they
directly talk about proposed changes to CC licenses, but as above, I
think the tangential use case discussion needs to happen on
cc-community.

> > i do not think that the wording of the unported licenses is currently
> > up for discussion (unless i have missed something, but i think in that
> > case you need to talk to someone from CC HQ anyway).
>
> Hey, what's done is done. Not an issue. The 3.0 licenses are released. But 
> why
> can't it be fixed for 3.x?

Suggestions for future versions of the license are welcome, keeping in
mind that versioning may be in the very distant future -- but not
impossibly distant, see http://creativecommons.org/weblog/entry/7888
-- of which more input is welcome on.

Mike