Development of Creative Commons licenses

[Jessica Coates <j2.coates AT qut.edu.au>]

Hi

Our theory is that you don't have to use a CC licence, as long as your new 
licence doesn't breach the CC terms (eg BY, NC, no DRMs etc).

That being said - I agree that it does probably create a strong incentive to 
use a CC licence, because it's hard to ensure the terms are all compatible.

Any ideas how we could lessen the effect? Maybe by changing the text to refer 
to rights and responsibilities under the licence?

Also - it's been pointed out that our proposed language for how you can 
distribute the original work (ie under the same CC licence, a later version, 
or the same licence from another jurisdiction) actually goes much further 
than the Unported text, which just says:

"You may Distribute or Publicly Perform the Work only under the terms of this 
License."

What do people think? Should we roll our language back in line with the 
Unported, or is the forward and cross-jurisdiction compatibility implied/a 
good thing?


Jessica Coates
Project Manager
Creative Commons Clinic
Queensland University of Technology

ph: 07 3138 8301
fax: 07 3138 9598
email: j2.coates AT qut.edu.au


----------------------------------------------------------------------


Date: Fri, 13 Jun 2008 00:42:55 -0700 (PDT)
From: shell_layer-creativecommons AT yahoo.com.au
Subject: Re: [cc-licenses] CCau v3.0 public launch
To: Development of Creative Commons licenses
        <cc-licenses AT lists.ibiblio.org>
Message-ID: <457620.80847.qm AT web54604.mail.re2.yahoo.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8

Hi, all.

I'd give the new language on derivative works the thumbs-up; that part has 
needed clarifying for a while (it probably should be mentioned on the Commons 
Deed).

However, a question arises: if you can only license a derivative under more 
restrictive terms, does that mean that you have to use a Creative Commons 
licence of some kind? A kind of within-Creative-Commons copyleft?

--- On Thu, 12/6/08, Jessica Coates <j2.coates AT qut.edu.au> wrote:

> From: Jessica Coates <j2.coates AT qut.edu.au>
> Subject: [cc-licenses] CCau v3.0 public launch
> To: "cci AT lists.ibiblio.org" <cci AT lists.ibiblio.org>, 
> "cc-licenses AT lists.ibiblio.org" <cc-licenses AT lists.ibiblio.org>
> Received: Thursday, 12 June, 2008, 5:44 PM
> Hi all (apologies for cross posts)
>
> As some of you will have seen in the community list, CCau
> have just released our v3.0 licences for public
> consultation (http://creativecommons.org.au/v3draft). Or
> more specifically, we've released our BY
> (http://creativecommons.org.au/materials/BY_v3_Aus_June_08_draft.pdf)
> and BY-NC-SA
> (http://creativecommons.org.au/materials/BY_NC_SA_v3_Aus_June_08_draft.pdf)
> drafts.
>
> We know this isn't the usual process for jurisdiction
> upgrades, but we thought that it was important in this
> case, because we wanted to know what the community thinks
> about some licensing decisions we've made. Which is why
> I'm writing separately to these two lists - obviously
> you guys are the experts on the CC licences, and so
> we'd love your opinions.
>
> The two (potentially) controversial proposals we're
> going with in these drafts are:
>
> - Rather than writing the licences as a straight
> jurisdiction translation from the Unported licences
> provided by CC International, we've decided to base
> them on the plain English licences produced last year by CC
> Aotearoa New Zealand, which they in turn based on the
> England and Wales licences. Not such a controversial idea,
> seeing it's been done before, but we thought it was a
> good time to seek feedback on this. Also, we've adapted
> the previous plain English licences substantially to align
> them more closely with the Unported licence. Let us know
> what you think of the drafts.
>
> - More interestingly, we're also proposing to add some
> language to the BY and BY-NC licences that isn't in
> either the Unported or the previous plain English licences.
> The aim of this language is to clarify how derivative works
> that incorporate BY and BY-NC material can be licensed.
> This has been a problem in our implementation discussions
> with government, so we thought it might be a good idea to
> spell it out a bit more in the licences. The language
> we're proposing is based on discussion we had with Mia
> (yes that long ago!) and the licensing table on the CC FAQ
> page -
> http://wiki.creativecommons.org/FAQ#I_used_part_of_a_Creative_Commons-licensed_work.2C_which_Creative_Commons_license_can_I_relicense_my_work_under.3F
> Note that the new language is just a proposal - it
> isn't finalised yet. But we thought we'd highlight
> it now, in the lead up to the Legal Day in Sapporo, when
> we're hoping to get some discussion about it going.
>
> We're keen to hear what people think about the drafts,
> and particularly the proposed derivative licensing
> language. Let us know what you think!
>
>
> Jessica Coates
> Project Manager
> Creative Commons Clinic
> Queensland University of Technology
>
> ph: 07 3138 8301
> fax: 07 3138 9598
> email: j2.coates AT qut.edu.au
> _______________________________________________
> cc-licenses mailing list
> cc-licenses AT lists.ibiblio.org
> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-licenses


      Get the name you always wanted with the new y7mail email address.
www.yahoo7.com.au/mail


------------------------------

_______________________________________________
cc-licenses mailing list
cc-licenses AT lists.ibiblio.org
http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-licenses


End of cc-licenses Digest, Vol 61, Issue 3
******************************************